Drawing this conclusion from this argument has been completely and totally squashed by Ravnodaus, by myself, and by others in this thread.
Just because people stop replying to you does not mean they agree with you.
Especially when at least some of the people in the thread may have one of those listed accounts on perma-Ignore
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)
A DM ruling is required when RAW is confusing or incomplete.
Which isn't the case here
Just because some people seem confused doesn't mean it's confusing
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)
Even if we accept that this is how the rule actually works (it isn't, it's just a flat 50 gp for the process no matter what it takes, unless an ability explicitly reduces it such as the Savant features), this also assumes that every spell you could possibly learn is going to cost the exact same amount to practice, per level. This wouldn't work out in a real-world scenario.
Well, I suppose it's up to you if you want to accept it or not, but what I've written in post #226 is indeed exactly how the rule actually works. In fact, I was answering your question about how it works -- that was the whole purpose of the post.
It is not "just a flat 50 gp for the process no matter what it takes". The costs are explicitly broken down within the Rule. Refer back to Post #209 for the specifics.
Indeed, every spell you could possibly learn IS going to cost the exact same amount to practice, per level. That is exactly correct. I'm not sure what you are referring to that "wouldn't work out in a real-world scenario". What wouldn't work out? It seems to me that it works out just fine.
To further the point, if the breakdown worked the way you stated it does, then the two spells you learn on leveling up would require a minimum of 10 gold per spell level each to add to the book. But you get to add them for free, because the part of the Spellcasting feature that talks about learning spells states it's free.
This is actually a good catch. I had missed that earlier when reviewing the rules and made an error earlier in the thread when I suggested that you are probably supposed to pay for the ink for those spells upon leveling up. Post #207 I think. So, I was wrong about that. It's not really clear where you actually get the ink for those spells then, but I guess it should be possible to come up with an in-game explanation for that which isn't too outlandish.
For any talking about the Wizardly Quill as if it replaces all the text of the transcription ability, no, it doesn't. . . . Instead, it calls on the prior text tied to transcription, meaning it's following those rules in all ways except those it explicitly alters (the timing).
Yep, we agree on this. The 2 hours becomes 2 minutes. That's the only change to the Rule that occurs when using the Feature.
----------
I think I'm realizing the cause of why people can't seem to get on the same page in this discussion. I think that a lot of people are misinterpreting the Rule. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that spells cost money. Or even that scribing spells costs money. It doesn't. The relevant section says this:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. 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.
In other words, it's the material components and the fine inks which cost money, not the spell and not the scribing.
So, a process or method of scribing is given which all Wizards may use. If they have no other special training or abilities and no other equipment and nothing useful already within his inventory, then that Wizard might choose to participate in this default process where he sits in his laboratory and does all of the listed work himself. He deciphers the source by conducting the experiments and then encodes the spell into his own notation -- a 2 hour process which requires certain materials be on hand in order to complete the task. Those materials cost 50 gp.
But maybe there are other ways to get this task done. Perhaps he could seek out a specialist Wizard from the school of magic which matches up with the spell. Maybe that Wizard is running a side business where he will charge only 30 gp to do this work for you -- after all, it only costs that Wizard 25 gp worth of materials to scribe a spell within his specialization -- so, he is showing a profit and you are saving money.
Or, there may be any number of additional solutions to this problem of getting the spell scribed into your spellbook -- including using the Wizardly Quill Feature, which is yet another separate way to get this task done. D&D is a game filled with coming up with alternative solutions to completing tasks.
So again, the Rule is very explicitly NOT requiring a specific payment for all spell scribing -- it is listing the price of the materials needed if you use the default process for scribing a spell.
I think I'm realizing the cause of why people can't seem to get on the same page in this discussion. I think that a lot of people are misinterpreting the Rule. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that spells cost money. Or even that scribing spells costs money.
No, you're the one misinterpreting the rules. What it "represents" is flavor text, given to help make sense in-character why you're having to pay. But mechanically, in the game, the cost is required unless an ability explicitly states otherwise. That's all there is to it. There's nothing else to discuss. No other argument matters.
I think I'm realizing the cause of why people can't seem to get on the same page in this discussion. I think that a lot of people are misinterpreting the Rule. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that spells cost money. Or even that scribing spells costs money.
No, you're the one misinterpreting the rules. What it "represents" is flavor text, given to help make sense in-character why you're having to pay. But mechanically, in the game, the cost is required unless an ability explicitly states otherwise. That's all there is to it. There's nothing else to discuss. No other argument matters.
No, this is all false. It is absolutely not flavor text that describes what is being paid for -- it is essential information to explain the default process of scribing a spell.
There is no where else in the real world or in the game world where there is some sort of price tag to just act in the world. You specifically pay for physical goods. You pay for services. You might even pay taxes or fees or tolls and so on. But you don't pay to move or to breathe or to walk around or whatever else you might want to do throughout your day. You just do those things if you are able.
Scribing a spell is like that. You just sit down with your spellbook and you do it. You move your arm and your hand. You don't pay money to be able to do that. It's not a video game where you click on the Scribe Now button and that button has a price tag. When you click the button you hear a little sound effect of a pile of coins leaving your inventory and then a happy jingle of acquiring something -- a scribed spell. That's just not how the world works.
The reason why you cannot generally scribe a spell for free is that you don't know what is written in the spell scroll that you are copying from. And you don't have any ink with which to write. By default, the only way that a Wizard can decipher encrypted spell text is to perform experiments while attempting to decipher the meaning through trial and error -- as explained in the Your Spellbook Rule. To do that, you'll need to buy actual physical materials. To write down a spell you'll need to buy ink. This is all very explicitly explained -- there's not even any ambiguity with this. You are told exactly what you will be spending your gold pieces on if you want to use this default process. You do not spend money for the "right" or the "permission" to perform the activity -- otherwise the Rule would have said so. No, instead you are spending money on physical materials and inks. By rule. No other argument matters.
You're still using real world examples, and that's wrong. The only valid arguments pull specifically from game mechanics, because D&D is a game, not a reality simulator.
I tend to use real world examples to help other readers understand the rules.
In terms of the game mechanics, the Your Spellbook Rule explicitly lists monetary costs to buy material components and fine inks. Nothing else within this Rule costs any money.
If your explanation that the game mechanics being material components and fine inks held up: 1. Level-up spells would cost 10gp at minimum 2. Different spells would have different costs to learn them, based on materials, as not every spell would use the same amount of materials (even if we don't consider it as using the material components that are listed in the spell)
As these aren't true, the only logical conclusion is that the 50gp is a game mechanic, not just what it's stated to represent. Not to mention, again, that you're completely ignoring that the ability doesn't say it reduces the cost, which it would have to state explicitly in order to do so. The rules in D&D aren't designed to make the players read between the lines, and you're just the worst type of rules lawyer: The wrong type, who still insists that their house rule is correct.
If your explanation that the game mechanics being material components and fine inks held up: 1. Level-up spells would cost 10gp at minimum 2. Different spells would have different costs to learn them, based on materials, as not every spell would use the same amount of materials (even if we don't consider it as using the material components that are listed in the spell)
As these aren't true, the only logical conclusion is that the 50gp is a game mechanic, not just what it's stated to represent. Not to mention, again, that you're completely ignoring that the ability doesn't say it reduces the cost, which it would have to state explicitly in order to do so. The rules in D&D aren't designed to make the players read between the lines, and you're just the worst type of rules lawyer: The wrong type, who still insists that their house rule is correct.
Nope, you are completely wrong about everything that you've said here.
It's true that the level-up spells should cost 10 gp / level. However, the rules make an explicit exception to this here:
Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
As a matter of fact, you were the one who originally brought up this detail in this thread, back on Post #227. It's a little weird that you've already forgotten.
My explanation that the costs in the Rule represent material components and fine inks does NOT mean in any way that different spells would have different costs to learn them, based on materials. Not even a little bit. Indeed, yes, every spell would use the same amount of materials (per level).
Therefore, your "only logical conclusion" is false.
the ability doesn't say it reduces the cost, which it would have to state explicitly in order to do so.
Yes, I've agreed with this from the beginning. Magic shops all over the land are NOT changing the price tags attached to their fine inks in response to us using the Wizardly Quill Feature. That is correct. So what? What is your point?
and you're just the worst type of rules lawyer: The wrong type, who still insists that their house rule is correct.
First of all, I have not mentioned anything about house ruling anything in this thread. I will do that in threads, but that is not what's happening in this one. For example, there is currently another thread going on right now about the invisible condition -- my first post in that thread point blank recommends an immediate house rule to change that text because the current invisible condition does not work correctly. So yes, when the time and place is right for it, I will suggest house rules. But never in this thread. In this thread I'm talking about the Rule as Written, which was posted in its entirety on Post #209.
I suppose this was meant to be some sort of insult, but I'm not sure. Like, I'm being mocked for discussing rules in the Rules and Game Mechanics Forum I guess? Ummm . . . darn! Stop saying such mean things? I guess?
First of all, I have not mentioned anything about house ruling anything in this thread. I will do that in threads, but that is not what's happening in this one. For example, there is currently another thread going on right now about the invisible condition -- my first post in that thread point blank recommends an immediate house rule to change that text because the current invisible condition does not work correctly. So yes, when the time and place is right for it, I will suggest house rules. But never in this thread. In this thread I'm talking about the Rule as Written, which was posted in its entirety on Post #209.
I mean, you aren't exactly talking only about RAW either. Comment #215:
*** Because the entire process only takes 2 minutes, the Quill must not require the source spell to be deciphered. Otherwise, the entire process would have taken over an hour. It is able to quickly transcribe the spell undeciphered. Since you don't need to decipher the spell you don't need to buy the material components for the practice and experimentation. Since your Quill provides the ink, you don't need to buy ink. Therefore, for you, in this situation, there was no cost to scribe the spell and the process was complete after 2 minutes. ***
That is my DM ruling which explains what just happened.
So you aren't making an argument for what the rules say, you're making an argument for how you would rule the situation as a DM. That could reasonably be called as a house rule.
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)
Ah ok then that's a fair point if that's the case.
When I see the phrase "house rule" I usually assume that would be talking about changing the rules in some way -- like in the discussion about the invisible condition.
To me, making a DM ruling is not the same as that. True, it's not RAW per se, it's just another aspect of the game.
The DM describes the scene. The players make decisions for the PCs. The DM then applies the RAW to the game situation to make a ruling on the outcome.
The RAW is self-explanatory. The ONLY thing it changes is the time. That you're trying to make a ruling based on your misinterpretation of the feature (excluding the cost despite the ability not stating that you get to exclude the cost) IS a house rule, plain and simple.
It is not helpful to the discussion for you to continue to repeat the same false statements without even trying to understand what is going on.
If and when your player asks you why they need to pay for materials despite the time discrepancy, you should have an answer for them besides "because I said so".
For your benefit, I will explain this situation again. Follow along. You might learn something.
I agree that the RAW is at least somewhat self-explanatory. I think that it could have been written more clearly, but it gets the job done. It appears in the "Your Spellbook" Sidebar of the Wizard class. For your reference, this was posted back in Post #209.
When the Wizardly Quill Feature is used, one aspect of the general Rule is superseded. Now, "the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level if you use the quill for the transcription."
Now there is a paradox which should be resolved. The experimentation required to decipher the spell takes 1 hour per level and costs 40 gold per level. This has NOT changed. Only the above quoted text from the Feature has changed.
The quill does not perform any experiments. It performs the transcription (see above). Experimentation is still performed by the Wizard and his brain power and this still takes 1 hour and costs 40 gold if the default procedure given in the Rule is followed. However, the time you must spend to perform the experiments AND transcribe the spell equals 2 minutes per spell level.
This simply is not possible and must be reconciled. Both of those things cannot be true at the same time. Something has changed. But there is no explanation for this provided by the text. Therefore, it becomes the DM's responsibility.
When the DM explains what just happened and how it was possible to scribe the spell in 2 minutes . . . the best explanation is that the spell did not have to be deciphered because the quill was used for the transcription. This is not spelled out in the Feature, it is implied. It is a direct consequence of the change in how much time must be spent to copy a spell. And yes, that is a DM ruling which applies the Rules as Written to the situation happening in the game in order to explain the outcome of events.
Are there other explanations? Possibly. Only one forum poster has made such an attempt and it seemed to somehow involve the Awakened Spellbook and/or altering time or something. As a player, I would not be satisfied with an answer like that but at least it was better than "because I said so", which is what everyone else seems to advocate.
Specifically the above cited rules say: "Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then 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, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. 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."
From this we know that 2 hours per spell level is spent doing all of the following: Reproducing the basic form of the spell, deciphering the notation of the source you are copying from, practicing the spell, and transcribing it.
We do not know how much time specifically is being spent on each of these actions.
Similarly, we know that 50gp per spell level is spent on the following: material components expended while experimenting with the spell, and fine inks used to record the spell.
We do not know how much gold specifically is being spent on each of these items.
Your claim that everything besides the transcription takes 1 hour and 40gp of material components is consumed in the experimentation is just how you would rule it as a DM. This is your prerogative and there is nothing wrong with this, however other DMs may rule differently from you.
Another DM could rule that a wizard uses 49gp, 9sp, and 9cp on rare materials like powdered gems or rare flowers to reveal the secret arcane workings of the spell. They could rule that the process of reproducing the spells form, deciphering the source text, and practicing the spell takes 2 minutes per spell level, and the other 118 minutes per spell level is spent transcribing the spell as they meticulously write down every detail of the spell and its arcane workings.
In fact, in that post of yours, you acknowledge that different DMs may rule differently and that some may rule closer to RAW or deviate from it.
Be aware that denouncing or attempting to limit the methods, flavors, or fun in which others experience D&D is potentially a violation of the site rules and guidelines.
It is understandable that how you would rule this particular interaction is what seems best to you. But please try to be more understanding of the fact that different people will engage with the game in different ways, find that different things help or break their immersion, and make different rulings from you.
In fact, this is something we should all try to keep in mind.
Fangeye, I appreciate the logical and non-hostile post. But I think that you are not understanding which parts of my interpretation reference the Rules as Written and which parts are a DM Ruling.
From this we know that 2 hours per spell level is spent doing all of the following: Reproducing the basic form of the spell, deciphering the notation of the source you are copying from, practicing the spell, and transcribing it.
We do not know how much time specifically is being spent on each of these actions.
Similarly, we know that 50gp per spell level is spent on the following: material components expended while experimenting with the spell, and fine inks used to record the spell.
We do not know how much gold specifically is being spent on each of these items.
No, no, no. This is incorrect. You have to look at the entire Rule. You cannot choose a section of a Rule and ignore the rest of the Rule when the rest of the Rule contains relevant and important information. That is not how the rules work anywhere in any of the official sourcebooks. You have to consider all available relevant information. This is why such concepts like the rules for Hiding can become cumbersome for some people -- the information is all spread out. But it is all applicable. Ignoring portions of a rule goes against RAW.
The Rule which describes a process for adding a spell into your spell book is the entire Your Spellbook Sidebar in the Wizard class description. The only reason why the Rule is organized into the specific paragraphs that they are is to help the reader understand that a spell that you are trying to add into your spell book can come from any one of 4 possible sources:
1. You learn the spell upon leveling up.
2. Another Wizard wrote the spell.
3. You wrote the spell.
4. You have the spell prepared (in your "memory").
The general process for adding a spell is:
1. Reproduce the basic form of the spell. No additional information is given for what this means exactly, but in context I take this to mean that you just have to have a copy of the spell in front of you -- you can't scribe a spell by just remembering something that you saw someplace while walking through the dungeon a while back. You have to have the information in front of you. It could also mean that you jot down an outline or some notes as a first step in the deciphering process.
2. Decrypt the writing, if necessary. By default, this will involve reading and thinking about the spell and then practicing and experimenting with the spell until it is fully deciphered and mastered.
3. Encrypt the spell, transcribing it into your own spell book.
Step 1 takes no time and has no cost in and of itself. If a spell must be deciphered, this step becomes part of the deciphering process.
Step 2 takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp.
Step 3 takes 1 hour and costs 10 gp.
This is all provided in the Rule. Start with the paragraph which discusses which steps are required when you were the one who wrote the original spell.
That paragraph explains that in these cases the deciphering steps are unnecessary and therefore only the transcription step applies. In that case, explicitly, the process takes 1 hour and costs 10 gp. Since no experimentation was done, the cost is due to fine inks.
The other paragraph discusses which steps are required when another wizard was the one who wrote the original spell.
That paragraph explains in those cases both deciphering and transcription steps are necessary. In that case, explicitly, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost is due to material components (for experiments) and fine inks.
It is the same Rule. It is the same process. The Rule even goes out of its way to reiterate that the process involved when you wrote the original spell "is just like" the process involved when another wizard wrote the original spell. The process is the same.
In one case, we do the transcription. 1 hour, 10 gp.
In another case, we do the deciphering and the transcription. 2 hours, 50 gp.
From there, it is extraordinarily easy math to determine that the deciphering takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp, which represents the cost of the material components (for experiments).
This is all RAW. That's where a lot of you are going wrong. The Rule says all of this. That's what Rules as Written means. We are still speaking only about RAW up until this point.
Your claim that everything besides the transcription takes 1 hour and 40gp of material components is consumed in the experimentation is just how you would rule it as a DM. This is your prerogative and there is nothing wrong with this, however other DMs may rule differently from you.
Another DM could rule that a wizard uses 49gp, 9sp, and 9cp on rare materials like powdered gems or rare flowers to reveal the secret arcane workings of the spell. They could rule that the process of reproducing the spells form, deciphering the source text, and practicing the spell takes 2 minutes per spell level, and the other 118 minutes per spell level is spent transcribing the spell as they meticulously write down every detail of the spell and its arcane workings.
Absolutely not. This is not a "claim" that I am making. This is simply restating the Rules as they are Written. This is not part of my DM Ruling at all. These are the rules. They are written in the Your Spellbook Sidebar of the Wizard class description. If other DMs rule differently than me on this, such as in the above examples, then they are 100% homebrewing.
I stand by everything that I said in Post #140 as it is the same point that I am making here and for some reason it is still going over people's heads.
The point is, everything up until now is RAW. Then, we use the Feature. The Feature directly conflicts with one small part of the general Rule and therefore supersedes it. This was illustrated nicely way back in Post #29 by Noksa even though he ends up drawing the wrong conclusion. Notice how he changes one single word as a result of using the Feature.
Nothing else changes. Including the fact that performing the necessary experiments still takes 1 hour. Only the total time spent has changed.
So, now we have a paradox and there is no explanation given by the text for how to resolve this.
THIS is the point at which we have gone as far as we can go with RAW and now we need to make a DM Ruling in order to describe the outcome of using the Feature. THIS is the point where I have agreed that if other DMs can come up with some other explanation that makes sense then they should go with that. MY DM Ruling to explain this inconsistency is that, obviously, when we use the quill the spell does not need to be deciphered.
This solves all of the inconsistencies, it aligns with the absence of any mention of cost associated with the time spent by the Feature, it supports and bolsters the lore about what Scribes Wizards are supposed to be able to do, it makes logical sense and it stays within the RAW. It is the best interpretation and the best DM Ruling for the situation.
Be aware that denouncing or attempting to limit the methods, flavors, or fun in which others experience D&D is potentially a violation of the site rules and guidelines.
It is understandable that how you would rule this particular interaction is what seems best to you. But please try to be more understanding of the fact that different people will engage with the game in different ways, find that different things help or break their immersion, and make different rulings from you.
In fact, this is something we should all try to keep in mind.
I have done no such thing. If this is an accusation of such behavior then you will retract that statement immediately.
MY DM Ruling to explain this inconsistency is that, obviously, when we use the quill the spell does not need to be deciphered.
This solves all of the inconsistencies, it aligns with the absence of any mention of cost associated with the time spent by the Feature, it supports and bolsters the lore about what Scribes Wizards are supposed to be able to do, it makes logical sense and it stays within the RAW.
Correction: it doesn't stay within the RAW. If it stayed within the RAW, it wouldn't be a DM ruling, it would just be RAW. This ruling grants additional power to a feature that doesn't list that power as part of the feature. You might claim that it isn't changing the text of the feature, but it's systematically altering the effects of the feature in a way that RAW doesn't prescribe. So, that makes it not RAW.
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)
If it stayed within the RAW, it wouldn't be a DM ruling, it would just be RAW.
What? This doesn't make sense. There are plenty of examples throughout the game where there is not enough detail provided by the rules text to resolve a specific situation that comes up during the game. When this happens, by rule, the DM makes a ruling. If the DM uses the information that is available in the rules and then applies those rules to the situation to make a ruling, he has stayed within the rules as written. This is just the basics of how the game is played.
This ruling grants additional power to a feature that doesn't list that power as part of the feature. . . . it's systematically altering the effects of the feature in a way that RAW doesn't prescribe.
What? I'm not proposing altering anything about the Feature. The Feature says that when the quill is used to perform the transcription half of the process that you must spend 2 minutes per level to complete the full task (deciphering plus transcription). Those are the effects of the Feature. Nothing is altered and no additional power has been granted. But this must then be explained. How or why is this possible? The text does not provide the answer directly.
The best answer is that the deciphering process which, by rule, takes you 1 hour to complete is now skipped when using this Feature. Otherwise, the Feature would not be able to do what it says it can do. The quill is able to transcribe undeciphered text.
Another possible interpretation is that the quill can transcribe 59/60ths of the text undeciphered but for some reason you must still decipher 1/60th of the text. So, instead of needing to perform 1 hour of experimentation, we now must perform 1 minute of experimentation and then the quill performs the entire transcription in 1 minute. To do this, we must buy 1/60th of the usual amount of material components. These material components normally cost 40 gp. Now they cost 40/60 gp, which is equal to 6 silver pieces and 7 copper pieces. In this case, instead of the Scribes Wizard being able to add this spell to their spell book on the fly while diving a dungeon, they must now take a physical copy of this spell with them, if possible, when exiting the dungeon. Then, make his way all the way back to civilization, set aside some downtime, buy less than 7 silver pieces worth of materials and perform 1 minute of experiments. This solution works. But it's less good than my solution for a lot of reasons. If a DM comes up with yet another solution that works then go for it.
Besides my solution being supported by the Rules, I also believe that it was the intended result. If there was meant to be a cost associated with using the Feature, it would have been listed in the feature, just like there was one mentioned in the UA version and just like the other 1/2 time, 1/2 cost Features and Abilities list that cost explicitly. The absence of any cost listed in this Feature implies that there is no cost -- precisely because of what I've described repeatedly. The switch of the timeframe to 2 minutes implies that the Wizard does not have to spend any time to conduct the experiments and therefore the intention must have been that the Wizard does not perform those experiments when this feature is used. I believe that was intended, and it also happens to be the best explanation for what actually happens when the Feature is used. It is far better than the alternate solutions such as the one I've suggested above.
If it was intended to reduce the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. It doesn't state that, so it doesn't reduce the cost. It really is that simple, and RAW, any other answer is wrong. I can only assume at this point that you're trying to justify your stance by bringing up irrelevant details that (while, admittedly, would be fair if this game was meant to simulate reality in any way) have no impact.
This ruling grants additional power to a feature that doesn't list that power as part of the feature. . . . it's systematically altering the effects of the feature in a way that RAW doesn't prescribe.
What? I'm not proposing altering anything about the Feature. The Feature says that when the quill is used to perform the transcription half of the process that you must spend 2 minutes per level to complete the full task (deciphering plus transcription). Those are the effects of the Feature. Nothing is altered and no additional power has been granted. But this must then be explained. How or why is this possible? The text does not provide the answer directly.
You turned the part of the quote where I predicted that you would say exactly this into ellipses. Yes, your explanation adds effects, even if you insist that it doesn't change the feature directly. Effects don't have to be direct. Yes, it is more powerful, because it lets you do a bunch of things for free. Free is notably better than 50 gp per spell level.
Another possible interpretation is that the quill can transcribe 59/60ths of the text undeciphered but for some reason you must still decipher 1/60th of the text. So, instead of needing to perform 1 hour of experimentation, we now must perform 1 minute of experimentation and then the quill performs the entire transcription in 1 minute. To do this, we must buy 1/60th of the usual amount of material components. These material components normally cost 40 gp. Now they cost 40/60 gp, which is equal to 6 silver pieces and 7 copper pieces. In this case, instead of the Scribes Wizard being able to add this spell to their spell book on the fly while diving a dungeon, they must now take a physical copy of this spell with them, if possible, when exiting the dungeon. Then, make his way all the way back to civilization, set aside some downtime, buy less than 7 silver pieces worth of materials and perform 1 minute of experiments. This solution works. But it's less good than my solution for a lot of reasons. If a DM comes up with yet another solution that works then go for it.
You're making a number of faulty assumptions here.
The first is that 1/60th of the time means 1/60th of the cost. The cost of material components and the time it takes to cast spells demonstrably have absolutely nothing to do with one another, so it's a baseless assumption to assume that the cost of material components and the time it takes to scribe spells are directly proportional.
The second is that fine inks aren't part of the equation at all. The decision that the quill produces inks that can be used to transcribe spells is just part of your ruling, so it's weird to decide the exact same thing when considering how else it could be ruled.
The third is that the entire cost of transcribing has to be paid in the moment of the transcription. As has been pointed out, many DMs allow players to buy "spell scribin' stuff" before the exact moment they scribe spells, and based on your weird lance examples, you seem to agree with that allowance. What's stopping you from bringing all that stuff into the dungeon and scribing on the go?
The fourth is that there is a finite number of "possible interpretations" of the feature, and that one has to be presented directly to you that works as well as yours for you to possibly accept that such an "interpretation" exists. When you're working so heavily with imagination, there are as many "possible interpretations" as there are stars in the sky, and they don't have to be presented directly to you for them to exist or to be acknowledged.
Besides my solution being supported by the Rules, I also believe that it was the intended result. If there was meant to be a cost associated with using the Feature, it would have been listed in the feature, just like there was one mentioned in the UA version and just like the other 1/2 time, 1/2 cost Features and Abilities list that cost explicitly. The absence of any cost listed in this Feature implies that there is no cost -- precisely because of what I've described repeatedly. The switch of the timeframe to 2 minutes implies that the Wizard does not have to spend any time to conduct the experiments and therefore the intention must have been that the Wizard does not perform those experiments when this feature is used. I believe that was intended, and it also happens to be the best explanation for what actually happens when the Feature is used. It is far better than the alternate solutions such as the one I've suggested above.
I simply cannot accept that the designers, having decided that the quill would make transcribing free, decided to not say that the quill would affect the cost of transcribing at all. Like, the designers sometimes put things in slightly weird and confusing ways, but they never make such a core rule as "oh, by the way, you can forget about all those hundreds/thousands of gold pieces" as reliant on all the different assumptions and rules you use to reach that conclusion. If the feature were intended to make transcribing free, they undoubtedly would have put it in the text.
Consider this: if it were intended to not affect the cost at all, do you think it would really be seen absolutely necessary by the designers (who, by the way, don't really care about people who look as far into the rules as you and I) to say "by the way, this feature doesn't affect the thing that it says it doesn't affect"?
I think that seeing all the other features that reduce cost having text that (in no uncertain terms) says that they reduce cost and then coming to the conclusion that if a feature still has any cost attached to it at all, it will say so, but if it doesn't, it won't, is incredibly out there. I mean, by your logic, those features wouldn't have to say that they reduce the cost at all, because they'd already be halving the cost (if not removing four fifths of it, since you'd probably assume it removes the experimentation part of the process, which you've divined lasts exactly 1 hour and costs exactly 40gp per spell level) by halving the time it takes to transcribe.
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)
IMO The feature has to have the following result when used to copy spells otherwise you wouldn't be able to prepare the spells you copied according to the last phrase for Copying a Spell into Your Spellbook.. So it both reduce time and require cost because it says one and not the other, even if it produce ink.
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then 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, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation. For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 minutes and costs 50 gp. 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. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 2 minutes and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell. If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
Wizardly Quill:The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level if you use the quill for the transcription.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Especially when at least some of the people in the thread may have one of those listed accounts on perma-Ignore
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)
Which isn't the case here
Just because some people seem confused doesn't mean it's confusing
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)
I agree.
Well, I suppose it's up to you if you want to accept it or not, but what I've written in post #226 is indeed exactly how the rule actually works. In fact, I was answering your question about how it works -- that was the whole purpose of the post.
It is not "just a flat 50 gp for the process no matter what it takes". The costs are explicitly broken down within the Rule. Refer back to Post #209 for the specifics.
Indeed, every spell you could possibly learn IS going to cost the exact same amount to practice, per level. That is exactly correct. I'm not sure what you are referring to that "wouldn't work out in a real-world scenario". What wouldn't work out? It seems to me that it works out just fine.
No, this is incorrect. The Rule very explicitly states what the 50 gp cost pays for:
This is actually a good catch. I had missed that earlier when reviewing the rules and made an error earlier in the thread when I suggested that you are probably supposed to pay for the ink for those spells upon leveling up. Post #207 I think. So, I was wrong about that. It's not really clear where you actually get the ink for those spells then, but I guess it should be possible to come up with an in-game explanation for that which isn't too outlandish.
Yep, we agree on this. The 2 hours becomes 2 minutes. That's the only change to the Rule that occurs when using the Feature.
----------
I think I'm realizing the cause of why people can't seem to get on the same page in this discussion. I think that a lot of people are misinterpreting the Rule. It seems like a lot of people are thinking that spells cost money. Or even that scribing spells costs money. It doesn't. The relevant section says this:
In other words, it's the material components and the fine inks which cost money, not the spell and not the scribing.
So, a process or method of scribing is given which all Wizards may use. If they have no other special training or abilities and no other equipment and nothing useful already within his inventory, then that Wizard might choose to participate in this default process where he sits in his laboratory and does all of the listed work himself. He deciphers the source by conducting the experiments and then encodes the spell into his own notation -- a 2 hour process which requires certain materials be on hand in order to complete the task. Those materials cost 50 gp.
But maybe there are other ways to get this task done. Perhaps he could seek out a specialist Wizard from the school of magic which matches up with the spell. Maybe that Wizard is running a side business where he will charge only 30 gp to do this work for you -- after all, it only costs that Wizard 25 gp worth of materials to scribe a spell within his specialization -- so, he is showing a profit and you are saving money.
Or, there may be any number of additional solutions to this problem of getting the spell scribed into your spellbook -- including using the Wizardly Quill Feature, which is yet another separate way to get this task done. D&D is a game filled with coming up with alternative solutions to completing tasks.
So again, the Rule is very explicitly NOT requiring a specific payment for all spell scribing -- it is listing the price of the materials needed if you use the default process for scribing a spell.
No, you're the one misinterpreting the rules. What it "represents" is flavor text, given to help make sense in-character why you're having to pay. But mechanically, in the game, the cost is required unless an ability explicitly states otherwise. That's all there is to it. There's nothing else to discuss. No other argument matters.
No, this is all false. It is absolutely not flavor text that describes what is being paid for -- it is essential information to explain the default process of scribing a spell.
There is no where else in the real world or in the game world where there is some sort of price tag to just act in the world. You specifically pay for physical goods. You pay for services. You might even pay taxes or fees or tolls and so on. But you don't pay to move or to breathe or to walk around or whatever else you might want to do throughout your day. You just do those things if you are able.
Scribing a spell is like that. You just sit down with your spellbook and you do it. You move your arm and your hand. You don't pay money to be able to do that. It's not a video game where you click on the Scribe Now button and that button has a price tag. When you click the button you hear a little sound effect of a pile of coins leaving your inventory and then a happy jingle of acquiring something -- a scribed spell. That's just not how the world works.
The reason why you cannot generally scribe a spell for free is that you don't know what is written in the spell scroll that you are copying from. And you don't have any ink with which to write. By default, the only way that a Wizard can decipher encrypted spell text is to perform experiments while attempting to decipher the meaning through trial and error -- as explained in the Your Spellbook Rule. To do that, you'll need to buy actual physical materials. To write down a spell you'll need to buy ink. This is all very explicitly explained -- there's not even any ambiguity with this. You are told exactly what you will be spending your gold pieces on if you want to use this default process. You do not spend money for the "right" or the "permission" to perform the activity -- otherwise the Rule would have said so. No, instead you are spending money on physical materials and inks. By rule. No other argument matters.
You're still using real world examples, and that's wrong. The only valid arguments pull specifically from game mechanics, because D&D is a game, not a reality simulator.
I tend to use real world examples to help other readers understand the rules.
In terms of the game mechanics, the Your Spellbook Rule explicitly lists monetary costs to buy material components and fine inks. Nothing else within this Rule costs any money.
If your explanation that the game mechanics being material components and fine inks held up:
1. Level-up spells would cost 10gp at minimum
2. Different spells would have different costs to learn them, based on materials, as not every spell would use the same amount of materials (even if we don't consider it as using the material components that are listed in the spell)
As these aren't true, the only logical conclusion is that the 50gp is a game mechanic, not just what it's stated to represent. Not to mention, again, that you're completely ignoring that the ability doesn't say it reduces the cost, which it would have to state explicitly in order to do so. The rules in D&D aren't designed to make the players read between the lines, and you're just the worst type of rules lawyer: The wrong type, who still insists that their house rule is correct.
Nope, you are completely wrong about everything that you've said here.
It's true that the level-up spells should cost 10 gp / level. However, the rules make an explicit exception to this here:
As a matter of fact, you were the one who originally brought up this detail in this thread, back on Post #227. It's a little weird that you've already forgotten.
My explanation that the costs in the Rule represent material components and fine inks does NOT mean in any way that different spells would have different costs to learn them, based on materials. Not even a little bit. Indeed, yes, every spell would use the same amount of materials (per level).
Therefore, your "only logical conclusion" is false.
As for this part:
Yes, I've agreed with this from the beginning. Magic shops all over the land are NOT changing the price tags attached to their fine inks in response to us using the Wizardly Quill Feature. That is correct. So what? What is your point?
First of all, I have not mentioned anything about house ruling anything in this thread. I will do that in threads, but that is not what's happening in this one. For example, there is currently another thread going on right now about the invisible condition -- my first post in that thread point blank recommends an immediate house rule to change that text because the current invisible condition does not work correctly. So yes, when the time and place is right for it, I will suggest house rules. But never in this thread. In this thread I'm talking about the Rule as Written, which was posted in its entirety on Post #209.
I suppose this was meant to be some sort of insult, but I'm not sure. Like, I'm being mocked for discussing rules in the Rules and Game Mechanics Forum I guess? Ummm . . . darn! Stop saying such mean things? I guess?
I mean, you aren't exactly talking only about RAW either. Comment #215:
So you aren't making an argument for what the rules say, you're making an argument for how you would rule the situation as a DM. That could reasonably be called as a house rule.
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)
Ah ok then that's a fair point if that's the case.
When I see the phrase "house rule" I usually assume that would be talking about changing the rules in some way -- like in the discussion about the invisible condition.
To me, making a DM ruling is not the same as that. True, it's not RAW per se, it's just another aspect of the game.
The DM describes the scene. The players make decisions for the PCs. The DM then applies the RAW to the game situation to make a ruling on the outcome.
The RAW is self-explanatory. The ONLY thing it changes is the time. That you're trying to make a ruling based on your misinterpretation of the feature (excluding the cost despite the ability not stating that you get to exclude the cost) IS a house rule, plain and simple.
Incorrect.
It is not helpful to the discussion for you to continue to repeat the same false statements without even trying to understand what is going on.
If and when your player asks you why they need to pay for materials despite the time discrepancy, you should have an answer for them besides "because I said so".
For your benefit, I will explain this situation again. Follow along. You might learn something.
I agree that the RAW is at least somewhat self-explanatory. I think that it could have been written more clearly, but it gets the job done. It appears in the "Your Spellbook" Sidebar of the Wizard class. For your reference, this was posted back in Post #209.
When the Wizardly Quill Feature is used, one aspect of the general Rule is superseded. Now, "the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level if you use the quill for the transcription."
Now there is a paradox which should be resolved. The experimentation required to decipher the spell takes 1 hour per level and costs 40 gold per level. This has NOT changed. Only the above quoted text from the Feature has changed.
The quill does not perform any experiments. It performs the transcription (see above). Experimentation is still performed by the Wizard and his brain power and this still takes 1 hour and costs 40 gold if the default procedure given in the Rule is followed. However, the time you must spend to perform the experiments AND transcribe the spell equals 2 minutes per spell level.
This simply is not possible and must be reconciled. Both of those things cannot be true at the same time. Something has changed. But there is no explanation for this provided by the text. Therefore, it becomes the DM's responsibility.
When the DM explains what just happened and how it was possible to scribe the spell in 2 minutes . . . the best explanation is that the spell did not have to be deciphered because the quill was used for the transcription. This is not spelled out in the Feature, it is implied. It is a direct consequence of the change in how much time must be spent to copy a spell. And yes, that is a DM ruling which applies the Rules as Written to the situation happening in the game in order to explain the outcome of events.
Are there other explanations? Possibly. Only one forum poster has made such an attempt and it seemed to somehow involve the Awakened Spellbook and/or altering time or something. As a player, I would not be satisfied with an answer like that but at least it was better than "because I said so", which is what everyone else seems to advocate.
As you know, this is not what is stipulated by the rules for copying a new spell into a spellbook. For reference here is the full text of the rules: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/classes#LearningSpellsof1stLevelandHigher
Specifically the above cited rules say:
"Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then 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, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. 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."
From this we know that 2 hours per spell level is spent doing all of the following: Reproducing the basic form of the spell, deciphering the notation of the source you are copying from, practicing the spell, and transcribing it.
We do not know how much time specifically is being spent on each of these actions.
Similarly, we know that 50gp per spell level is spent on the following: material components expended while experimenting with the spell, and fine inks used to record the spell.
We do not know how much gold specifically is being spent on each of these items.
None of these facts are new, and you acknowledged and accepted them in this post:https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/109004-order-of-scribes-spell-copy-cost?comment=95
Your claim that everything besides the transcription takes 1 hour and 40gp of material components is consumed in the experimentation is just how you would rule it as a DM. This is your prerogative and there is nothing wrong with this, however other DMs may rule differently from you.
Another DM could rule that a wizard uses 49gp, 9sp, and 9cp on rare materials like powdered gems or rare flowers to reveal the secret arcane workings of the spell. They could rule that the process of reproducing the spells form, deciphering the source text, and practicing the spell takes 2 minutes per spell level, and the other 118 minutes per spell level is spent transcribing the spell as they meticulously write down every detail of the spell and its arcane workings.
To such a DM the way the general rules for copying a spell into a spellbook interact with the Wizardly Quill feature makes sense to them. They see no need to deviate from the RAW behavior, which you agreed with in several posts such as this one: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/109004-order-of-scribes-spell-copy-cost?comment=140
In fact, in that post of yours, you acknowledge that different DMs may rule differently and that some may rule closer to RAW or deviate from it.
Be aware that denouncing or attempting to limit the methods, flavors, or fun in which others experience D&D is potentially a violation of the site rules and guidelines.
It is understandable that how you would rule this particular interaction is what seems best to you. But please try to be more understanding of the fact that different people will engage with the game in different ways, find that different things help or break their immersion, and make different rulings from you.
In fact, this is something we should all try to keep in mind.
Fangeye, I appreciate the logical and non-hostile post. But I think that you are not understanding which parts of my interpretation reference the Rules as Written and which parts are a DM Ruling.
No, no, no. This is incorrect. You have to look at the entire Rule. You cannot choose a section of a Rule and ignore the rest of the Rule when the rest of the Rule contains relevant and important information. That is not how the rules work anywhere in any of the official sourcebooks. You have to consider all available relevant information. This is why such concepts like the rules for Hiding can become cumbersome for some people -- the information is all spread out. But it is all applicable. Ignoring portions of a rule goes against RAW.
The Rule which describes a process for adding a spell into your spell book is the entire Your Spellbook Sidebar in the Wizard class description. The only reason why the Rule is organized into the specific paragraphs that they are is to help the reader understand that a spell that you are trying to add into your spell book can come from any one of 4 possible sources:
1. You learn the spell upon leveling up.
2. Another Wizard wrote the spell.
3. You wrote the spell.
4. You have the spell prepared (in your "memory").
The general process for adding a spell is:
1. Reproduce the basic form of the spell. No additional information is given for what this means exactly, but in context I take this to mean that you just have to have a copy of the spell in front of you -- you can't scribe a spell by just remembering something that you saw someplace while walking through the dungeon a while back. You have to have the information in front of you. It could also mean that you jot down an outline or some notes as a first step in the deciphering process.
2. Decrypt the writing, if necessary. By default, this will involve reading and thinking about the spell and then practicing and experimenting with the spell until it is fully deciphered and mastered.
3. Encrypt the spell, transcribing it into your own spell book.
Step 1 takes no time and has no cost in and of itself. If a spell must be deciphered, this step becomes part of the deciphering process.
Step 2 takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp.
Step 3 takes 1 hour and costs 10 gp.
This is all provided in the Rule. Start with the paragraph which discusses which steps are required when you were the one who wrote the original spell.
That paragraph explains that in these cases the deciphering steps are unnecessary and therefore only the transcription step applies. In that case, explicitly, the process takes 1 hour and costs 10 gp. Since no experimentation was done, the cost is due to fine inks.
The other paragraph discusses which steps are required when another wizard was the one who wrote the original spell.
That paragraph explains in those cases both deciphering and transcription steps are necessary. In that case, explicitly, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost is due to material components (for experiments) and fine inks.
It is the same Rule. It is the same process. The Rule even goes out of its way to reiterate that the process involved when you wrote the original spell "is just like" the process involved when another wizard wrote the original spell. The process is the same.
In one case, we do the transcription. 1 hour, 10 gp.
In another case, we do the deciphering and the transcription. 2 hours, 50 gp.
From there, it is extraordinarily easy math to determine that the deciphering takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp, which represents the cost of the material components (for experiments).
This is all RAW. That's where a lot of you are going wrong. The Rule says all of this. That's what Rules as Written means. We are still speaking only about RAW up until this point.
Absolutely not. This is not a "claim" that I am making. This is simply restating the Rules as they are Written. This is not part of my DM Ruling at all. These are the rules. They are written in the Your Spellbook Sidebar of the Wizard class description. If other DMs rule differently than me on this, such as in the above examples, then they are 100% homebrewing.
I stand by everything that I said in Post #140 as it is the same point that I am making here and for some reason it is still going over people's heads.
The point is, everything up until now is RAW. Then, we use the Feature. The Feature directly conflicts with one small part of the general Rule and therefore supersedes it. This was illustrated nicely way back in Post #29 by Noksa even though he ends up drawing the wrong conclusion. Notice how he changes one single word as a result of using the Feature.
Nothing else changes. Including the fact that performing the necessary experiments still takes 1 hour. Only the total time spent has changed.
So, now we have a paradox and there is no explanation given by the text for how to resolve this.
THIS is the point at which we have gone as far as we can go with RAW and now we need to make a DM Ruling in order to describe the outcome of using the Feature. THIS is the point where I have agreed that if other DMs can come up with some other explanation that makes sense then they should go with that. MY DM Ruling to explain this inconsistency is that, obviously, when we use the quill the spell does not need to be deciphered.
This solves all of the inconsistencies, it aligns with the absence of any mention of cost associated with the time spent by the Feature, it supports and bolsters the lore about what Scribes Wizards are supposed to be able to do, it makes logical sense and it stays within the RAW. It is the best interpretation and the best DM Ruling for the situation.
I have done no such thing. If this is an accusation of such behavior then you will retract that statement immediately.
Correction: it doesn't stay within the RAW. If it stayed within the RAW, it wouldn't be a DM ruling, it would just be RAW. This ruling grants additional power to a feature that doesn't list that power as part of the feature. You might claim that it isn't changing the text of the feature, but it's systematically altering the effects of the feature in a way that RAW doesn't prescribe. So, that makes it not RAW.
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)
What? This doesn't make sense. There are plenty of examples throughout the game where there is not enough detail provided by the rules text to resolve a specific situation that comes up during the game. When this happens, by rule, the DM makes a ruling. If the DM uses the information that is available in the rules and then applies those rules to the situation to make a ruling, he has stayed within the rules as written. This is just the basics of how the game is played.
What? I'm not proposing altering anything about the Feature. The Feature says that when the quill is used to perform the transcription half of the process that you must spend 2 minutes per level to complete the full task (deciphering plus transcription). Those are the effects of the Feature. Nothing is altered and no additional power has been granted. But this must then be explained. How or why is this possible? The text does not provide the answer directly.
The best answer is that the deciphering process which, by rule, takes you 1 hour to complete is now skipped when using this Feature. Otherwise, the Feature would not be able to do what it says it can do. The quill is able to transcribe undeciphered text.
Another possible interpretation is that the quill can transcribe 59/60ths of the text undeciphered but for some reason you must still decipher 1/60th of the text. So, instead of needing to perform 1 hour of experimentation, we now must perform 1 minute of experimentation and then the quill performs the entire transcription in 1 minute. To do this, we must buy 1/60th of the usual amount of material components. These material components normally cost 40 gp. Now they cost 40/60 gp, which is equal to 6 silver pieces and 7 copper pieces. In this case, instead of the Scribes Wizard being able to add this spell to their spell book on the fly while diving a dungeon, they must now take a physical copy of this spell with them, if possible, when exiting the dungeon. Then, make his way all the way back to civilization, set aside some downtime, buy less than 7 silver pieces worth of materials and perform 1 minute of experiments. This solution works. But it's less good than my solution for a lot of reasons. If a DM comes up with yet another solution that works then go for it.
Besides my solution being supported by the Rules, I also believe that it was the intended result. If there was meant to be a cost associated with using the Feature, it would have been listed in the feature, just like there was one mentioned in the UA version and just like the other 1/2 time, 1/2 cost Features and Abilities list that cost explicitly. The absence of any cost listed in this Feature implies that there is no cost -- precisely because of what I've described repeatedly. The switch of the timeframe to 2 minutes implies that the Wizard does not have to spend any time to conduct the experiments and therefore the intention must have been that the Wizard does not perform those experiments when this feature is used. I believe that was intended, and it also happens to be the best explanation for what actually happens when the Feature is used. It is far better than the alternate solutions such as the one I've suggested above.
If it was intended to reduce the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. It doesn't state that, so it doesn't reduce the cost. It really is that simple, and RAW, any other answer is wrong. I can only assume at this point that you're trying to justify your stance by bringing up irrelevant details that (while, admittedly, would be fair if this game was meant to simulate reality in any way) have no impact.
You turned the part of the quote where I predicted that you would say exactly this into ellipses. Yes, your explanation adds effects, even if you insist that it doesn't change the feature directly. Effects don't have to be direct. Yes, it is more powerful, because it lets you do a bunch of things for free. Free is notably better than 50 gp per spell level.
You're making a number of faulty assumptions here.
The first is that 1/60th of the time means 1/60th of the cost. The cost of material components and the time it takes to cast spells demonstrably have absolutely nothing to do with one another, so it's a baseless assumption to assume that the cost of material components and the time it takes to scribe spells are directly proportional.
The second is that fine inks aren't part of the equation at all. The decision that the quill produces inks that can be used to transcribe spells is just part of your ruling, so it's weird to decide the exact same thing when considering how else it could be ruled.
The third is that the entire cost of transcribing has to be paid in the moment of the transcription. As has been pointed out, many DMs allow players to buy "spell scribin' stuff" before the exact moment they scribe spells, and based on your weird lance examples, you seem to agree with that allowance. What's stopping you from bringing all that stuff into the dungeon and scribing on the go?
The fourth is that there is a finite number of "possible interpretations" of the feature, and that one has to be presented directly to you that works as well as yours for you to possibly accept that such an "interpretation" exists. When you're working so heavily with imagination, there are as many "possible interpretations" as there are stars in the sky, and they don't have to be presented directly to you for them to exist or to be acknowledged.
I simply cannot accept that the designers, having decided that the quill would make transcribing free, decided to not say that the quill would affect the cost of transcribing at all. Like, the designers sometimes put things in slightly weird and confusing ways, but they never make such a core rule as "oh, by the way, you can forget about all those hundreds/thousands of gold pieces" as reliant on all the different assumptions and rules you use to reach that conclusion. If the feature were intended to make transcribing free, they undoubtedly would have put it in the text.
Consider this: if it were intended to not affect the cost at all, do you think it would really be seen absolutely necessary by the designers (who, by the way, don't really care about people who look as far into the rules as you and I) to say "by the way, this feature doesn't affect the thing that it says it doesn't affect"?
I think that seeing all the other features that reduce cost having text that (in no uncertain terms) says that they reduce cost and then coming to the conclusion that if a feature still has any cost attached to it at all, it will say so, but if it doesn't, it won't, is incredibly out there. I mean, by your logic, those features wouldn't have to say that they reduce the cost at all, because they'd already be halving the cost (if not removing four fifths of it, since you'd probably assume it removes the experimentation part of the process, which you've divined lasts exactly 1 hour and costs exactly 40gp per spell level) by halving the time it takes to transcribe.
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)
IMO The feature has to have the following result when used to copy spells otherwise you wouldn't be able to prepare the spells you copied according to the last phrase for Copying a Spell into Your Spellbook.. So it both reduce time and require cost because it says one and not the other, even if it produce ink.