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.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, can you rephrase? What does being able to prepare a spell from your spell book have to do with the cost of scribing it?
How can copying a spell and replacing a spell have the same time requirement but different costs?
What does the 10 gp cost represent, "even if [ the quill ] produces ink"?
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.
No, this is wrong for two reasons.
First, the Feature doesn't have to state that cost is reduced if it is a direct consequence of what IS stated. This sort of thing happens all over the place in the game.
As a very quick and probably not perfect example: You walk into a totally dark room, touch a table in the middle of the room and cast Light. The room is no longer in total darkness as per what is stated in the spell description. However, in this case, there was a creature Hiding in the corner of the room -- he was taking advantage of the heavily obscured area created by the darkness. As soon as Light was cast, the DM rules that you see the creature right away and that the creature is no longer Hidden. Note that the Light spell doesn't say anything about exposing Hidden creatures. It doesn't have to say that. It is a direct consequence of what it DOES say.
Second, it is equally valid to make the opposite argument -- that if it was intended to have the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. Just like it is stated explicitly in the 1/2 time, 1/2 gold features.
Think of it like this: The relevant portion of the Rule which gets superseded is this:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
Many people are assuming that the Feature replaces a portion of this text like this:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 minutes and costs 50 gp.
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
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.
Yeah, I get what you're saying there but I just don't see it that way. The Feature is fundamentally changing the process somehow. It has to, otherwise it's not possible since the new timeframes do not align with the time required by the activities listed in the default process. So, the Feature explicitly states that there is a new timeframe and this has direct consequences.
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.
Ok, there are two issues here. First, the "material components" described in the Rule for scribing spells has nothing at all to do with the Material Component required to cast some spells. Unfortunately the same words are used, but these are totally different things. It's like saying "fruit" when what we are really talking about is apples and oranges.
Second, in fact, the cost of material components and fine inks used to scribe a spell IS directly proportional to the time spent scribing it. The Rule explicitly states this with the phrase "per level".
Example:
2 hours, 50 gp x 1 = 2 hours, 50 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 2 = 4 hours, 100 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 3 = 6 hours, 150 gp
and so on. The time spent and the cost involved 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.
Yeah, I've been trying to avoid the fine inks argument for a while since I find that aspect of this debate to be completely silly. It's painfully obvious to me that you are meant to use the Quill's ink to scribe spells. Whether that's fully RAW or if there was some oversight and it turns out to be just RAI -- that's a topic for another day. The case has been made, but it's mostly been ignored. I'm sure I'll get pulled back into debating the ink, but I personally find the topic of the material components to be a much more interesting discussion.
Besides that, I might be missing the point that's being made here. I'm not sure how the ink debate impacts anything here? If a DM agrees with me that the deciphering phase has been eliminated by the new timeframe, BUT that the Wizard must still pay for the ink -- then go ahead and make a ruling that just charges for the cost of the ink. What am I missing?
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?
Ok, I am with you on this and I do agree with this. But, this sort of flies in the face of some people's arguments that the cost referenced in the Rule is a cost to perform the scribing activity, like clicking on a "Scribe Now" button that has a cost.
If we are at least now in agreement that the cost referenced in the Rule represents the cost of buying material components and fine inks, then I feel like we are getting somewhere.
At that point, yes, I would agree with a DM Ruling that allows a character to purchase and potentially stock up on material components and fine inks and then add them to their inventory, assuming they are able to carry it (there is no weight associated with these things so that would require another DM Ruling).
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.
Hmm, I'm really not sure where you are getting this from. I have repeatedly said that when it comes to making the DM Ruling to explain what is going on in the game world that if you can come up with some other Ruling that makes sense to your players for your game world then you should just roll with that. I happen to think that my Ruling is the best Ruling and I have explained why. Every DM is free to rule things however they want.
But, the point is: If this situation comes up and your player asks you point blank "But, why do I still have to pay for the material components that are used to practice and experiment while deciphering the spell when the Quill is able to transcribe the spell in 2 minutes?" You should be prepared to answer this.
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"?
Ok, that's a fair stance. This should have been more clearly written either way. I think that I just don't have this same reaction to it as you do because I DO believe that the designers DID intend for there to be no cost. So my own reaction to what the designers must have been thinking tilts the other way. Something like this:
. . . the designers, having decided that using the quill would cost just as much as not using it, decided to not say that the quill's ink cannot be used for scribing and that the cost of deciphering the spell would remain unchanged, despite the fact that the timeframe to conduct experiments has been drastically reduced or eliminated. To me, my gut reaction is that this is just as unlikely as what you are saying that you think is unlikely about the designer's intent above.
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.
For Features that yield 1/2 time and 1/2 cost, I do not assume that the experimentation is eliminated. My own Ruling to explain this change is that the time for experimentation is reduced to 22.5 minutes (which costs 15 gp) and the time required to encode and write down the spell is reduced to 37.5 minutes and this costs 10 gp (the same number of words are being written down so the same amount of ink is used). This isn't pretty, but this is how it breaks down mathematically. It can be explained by realizing that these Wizards have developed additional expertise in a particular school of magic and therefore deciphering and encoding these types of spells is easier for this Wizard than it would be for a typical Wizard.
And no, it doesn't make sense to not explicitly list these new prices. The prices have changed to a specific new amount so this would have to be explicitly stated, otherwise there would be no way to know what the new price is.
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.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, can you rephrase? What does being able to prepare a spell from your spell book have to do with the cost of scribing it?
How can copying a spell and replacing a spell have the same time requirement but different costs?
What does the 10 gp cost represent, "even if [ the quill ] produces ink"?
1- ''Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.'' If you haven't spent the respective cost, to which the Wizardly Quill doesn't change, you can't prepare the spell copied.
2- Because copying a spell - new or not - when using a Wizardly Quill specifically say ''the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per level.''
3- Replacing one ''is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier'', so there it explain what it represent, ''The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it''
Second, it is equally valid to make the opposite argument -- that if it was intended to have the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. Just like it is stated explicitly in the 1/2 time, 1/2 gold features.
Think of it like this: The relevant portion of the Rule which gets superseded is this:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
Many people are assuming that the Feature replaces a portion of this text like this:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 minutes and costs 50 gp.
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
Nobody's going to look at it like that. That's a dumb way of looking at it. The quill doesn't say it has anything to do with the cost, why the hell would it supersede it? It's like saying the quill also lets you scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard, just because nothing in the quill says that you can't scribe 9th level spells.
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.
Ok, there are two issues here. First, the "material components" described in the Rule for scribing spells has nothing at all to do with the Material Component required to cast some spells. Unfortunately the same words are used, but these are totally different things. It's like saying "fruit" when what we are really talking about is apples and oranges.
I'm aware. That wasn't the crux of my argument, that was just something I said to point out how baseless the assumption that time is directly proportional to material component cost is.
Second, in fact, the cost of material components and fine inks used to scribe a spell IS directly proportional to the time spent scribing it. The Rule explicitly states this with the phrase "per level".
Example:
2 hours, 50 gp x 1 = 2 hours, 50 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 2 = 4 hours, 100 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 3 = 6 hours, 150 gp
and so on. The time spent and the cost involved ARE directly proportional.
As a pattern, maybe, but not as a rule. If you can point me to the text, in black and white, that says reducing the time reduces the cost in equal amount, then there'd be a rule. Otherwise, this means nothing. "Per level" doesn't matter when we're talking about changes to time, and possibly cost, outside of spell levels entirely.
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.
Hmm, I'm really not sure where you are getting this from. I have repeatedly said that when it comes to making the DM Ruling to explain what is going on in the game world that if you can come up with some other Ruling that makes sense to your players for your game world then you should just roll with that. I happen to think that my Ruling is the best Ruling and I have explained why. Every DM is free to rule things however they want.
But, the point is: If this situation comes up and your player asks you point blank "But, why do I still have to pay for the material components that are used to practice and experiment while deciphering the spell when the Quill is able to transcribe the spell in 2 minutes?" You should be prepared to answer this.
I don't think I need to be prepared to answer this, actually. This is something that hasn't been discussed much in the thread: it's the player's goddamn feature, not the DM's. It says the things that it does mechanically, and then the player is supposed to describe how those effects take place for their character. Why would the DM be deciding any of this?
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"?
Ok, that's a fair stance. This should have been more clearly written either way. I think that I just don't have this same reaction to it as you do because I DO believe that the designers DID intend for there to be no cost. So my own reaction to what the designers must have been thinking tilts the other way. Something like this:
. . . the designers, having decided that using the quill would cost just as much as not using it, decided to not say that the quill's ink cannot be used for scribing and that the cost of deciphering the spell would remain unchanged, despite the fact that the timeframe to conduct experiments has been drastically reduced or eliminated. To me, my gut reaction is that this is just as unlikely as what you are saying that you think is unlikely about the designer's intent above.
Well, your gut reaction is wrong. Whatever. The fact is, there's not too much reason to assume that the designers intended something that isn't a part of RAW unless they say so.
The prices have changed to a specific new amount so this would have to be explicitly stated, otherwise there would be no way to know what the new price is.
But of course, this perfectly reasonable sentence doesn't apply to Wizardly Quill because...
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)
As a very quick and probably not perfect example: You walk into a totally dark room, touch a table in the middle of the room and cast Light. The room is no longer in total darkness as per what is stated in the spell description. However, in this case, there was a creature Hiding in the corner of the room -- he was taking advantage of the heavily obscured area created by the darkness. As soon as Light was cast, the DM rules that you see the creature right away and that the creature is no longer Hidden. Note that the Light spell doesn't say anything about exposing Hidden creatures. It doesn't have to say that. It is a direct consequence of what it DOES say.
The rules for Hiding actually cover this just fine, so there's no conflict. You'd need a far better example to have any point at all here.
Second, it is equally valid to make the opposite argument -- that if it was intended to have the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. Just like it is stated explicitly in the 1/2 time, 1/2 gold features.
This would only be correct if it was a brand new rule, but it's not. It's only replacing a snippet of text in an existing rule, which is why only the part explicitly mentioned is altered, not the entire line. It's calling out a portion of the line by mentioning the time, and that's all you can accurately look at for this.
Ok, I am with you on this and I do agree with this. But, this sort of flies in the face of some people's arguments that the cost referenced in the Rule is a cost to perform the scribing activity, like clicking on a "Scribe Now" button that has a cost.
The fact still remains that this is a game first and foremost, and that's effectively exactly what you're doing.
it's the player's goddamn feature, not the DM's. It says the things that it does mechanically, and then the player is supposed to describe how those effects take place for their character. Why would the DM be deciding any of this?
I make a multiclass Order of Scribes wizard/Clockwork Soul sorcerer. After discussion with my DM, we decide my "spellbook" is actually a really intricate and ornate Rubik's Cube or Lament Configuration-like puzzle box, with runes engraved on metal rings that I can reconfigure to reveal different spells. (There will be definite Phantasm vibes when I start using Manifest Mind to send this floating metal orb out into the world.) As such, my "Wizardly Quill" is actually more like magical jeweler's tools, so that it can engrave new runes and rings as needed. No ink involved at all. Instead, the DM allows me to mark and unmark stone and metal surfaces with the "quill" rather than parchment
Question: how does this affect the cost of copying new spells into the "spellbook", per the rules for Wizardly Quill?
Answer: it doesn't, because the rules for Wizardly Quill don't affect cost at all
Flavor is flavor, and mechanics are mechanics
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)
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.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, can you rephrase? What does being able to prepare a spell from your spell book have to do with the cost of scribing it?
How can copying a spell and replacing a spell have the same time requirement but different costs?
What does the 10 gp cost represent, "even if [ the quill ] produces ink"?
1- ''Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.'' If you haven't spent the respective cost, to which the Wizardly Quill doesn't change, you can't prepare the spell copied.
2- Because copying a spell - new or not - when using a Wizardly Quill specifically say ''the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per level.''
3- Replacing one ''is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier'', so there it explain what it represent, ''The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it''
No, I do not agree with your interpretation in #1. First, the Wizardly Quill feature very well may change the cost as noted in my previous post, like so:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
In addition, that line that you quoted is in the context of completing the task described. It's explaining that this is the last step in that process. If you have some completely different way of adding a spell to a spell book then none of this applies anyway.
As for your interpretation #2, you haven't answered the question. You are noting that the time requirement is the same for two tasks. One of which contains all of the same action steps and costs of the second task, and also presumably includes additional steps which would require more cost. You have not explained how this paradox is possible.
The interpretation #3 makes no sense. That section of the rule explicitly states that you already understand your own notation and you already know how to cast the spell. No experimentation is required and no material components for experimentation are used.
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
Nobody's going to look at it like that. That's a dumb way of looking at it. The quill doesn't say it has anything to do with the cost, why the hell would it supersede it? It's like saying the quill also lets you scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard, just because nothing in the quill says that you can't scribe 9th level spells.
That's absurd. This is a completely valid way of looking at it -- it's not "dumb" at all. The original Rule spends a couple of paragraphs explaining logistically what the Wizard is actually doing to complete this task while following this process. Then a paragraph begins which explains the costs involved in completing this task in terms of time and money. The Feature then explains that if you use the quill for the transcription there is a new cost involved in terms of time and money to complete the task. This is completely logical. It is not the only interpretation but it is perfectly valid. In that case, the Feature doesn't HAVE to say anything about the monetary cost if that cost is 0. Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
The suggestion that the quill would then allow you to scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard is completely disingenuous. That is obviously not possible. That is already covered by the Rule here:
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.
You know this already, so please try to stay within the realm of actual productive discussion.
As a pattern, maybe, but not as a rule. If you can point me to the text, in black and white, that says reducing the time reduces the cost in equal amount, then there'd be a rule. Otherwise, this means nothing. "Per level" doesn't matter when we're talking about changes to time, and possibly cost, outside of spell levels entirely.
Ok, so I directly quote the text and post the example which mathematically shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent and you respond by asking me to post a quote that shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent? I mean, are you really asking me to just cut-and-paste what I just wrote? That's a little weird, but ok:
in fact, the cost of material components and fine inks used to scribe a spell IS directly proportional to the time spent scribing it. The Rule explicitly states this with the phrase "per level".
Example:
2 hours, 50 gp x 1 = 2 hours, 50 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 2 = 4 hours, 100 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 3 = 6 hours, 150 gp
and so on. The time spent and the cost involved ARE directly proportional.
This is something that hasn't been discussed much in the thread: it's the player's goddamn feature, not the DM's. It says the things that it does mechanically, and then the player is supposed to describe how those effects take place for their character. Why would the DM be deciding any of this?
Are you actually asking? Because this answer has already been provided also:
How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves
. . .
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
Ummmmm, ok? It's always great to see such intelligent, well thought out responses which of course are backed up by facts and direct quotes from the text. Awesome.
The prices have changed to a specific new amount so this would have to be explicitly stated, otherwise there would be no way to know what the new price is.
But of course, this perfectly reasonable sentence doesn't apply to Wizardly Quill because...
This has already been covered. First, it doesn't always make sense to explicitly list a cost of 0 gp to complete a task. For example, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp".
In addition, as covered in previous posts, no actual prices for materials are changed. You simply don't need to buy them due to the new timeframes involved. So, it is an implicit consequence of what is explicitly stated in the Feature.
As a very quick and probably not perfect example: You walk into a totally dark room, touch a table in the middle of the room and cast Light. The room is no longer in total darkness as per what is stated in the spell description. However, in this case, there was a creature Hiding in the corner of the room -- he was taking advantage of the heavily obscured area created by the darkness. As soon as Light was cast, the DM rules that you see the creature right away and that the creature is no longer Hidden. Note that the Light spell doesn't say anything about exposing Hidden creatures. It doesn't have to say that. It is a direct consequence of what it DOES say.
The rules for Hiding actually cover this just fine, so there's no conflict. You'd need a far better example to have any point at all here.
This was an example of how a rule doesn't explicitly state something, and yet something specific happens (implicitly) as a direct consequence of what IS stated.
In fact, the Light spell doesn't explicitly say anything about exposing Hidden creatures, and the rules for Hiding do not explicitly state what happens if there is any change in lighting within an area. The more I think about it, the more that I really like my example. It is a lot closer to "perfect" than I originally thought when I wrote it.
Second, it is equally valid to make the opposite argument -- that if it was intended to have the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. Just like it is stated explicitly in the 1/2 time, 1/2 gold features.
This would only be correct if it was a brand new rule, but it's not. It's only replacing a snippet of text in an existing rule, which is why only the part explicitly mentioned is altered, not the entire line. It's calling out a portion of the line by mentioning the time, and that's all you can accurately look at for this.
There are now two reasons why this is incorrect. First, it might be the case that the entire line is meant to be altered as explained above.
Second, using the Feature has implicit consequences. Something about the process must have changed, otherwise it is impossible for the Feature and the Rule to coexist. What exactly has changed is up to the DM since it is not explained by the text.
Ok, I am with you on this and I do agree with this. But, this sort of flies in the face of some people's arguments that the cost referenced in the Rule is a cost to perform the scribing activity, like clicking on a "Scribe Now" button that has a cost.
The fact still remains that this is a game first and foremost, and that's effectively exactly what you're doing.
Ok great, so that's one vote for the "Scribe Now" button, despite the fact that the Rule explicitly states that the monetary cost represents the purchase of material components and fine inks.
I make a multiclass Order of Scribes wizard/Clockwork Soul sorcerer. After discussion with my DM, we decide my "spellbook" is actually a really intricate and ornate Rubik's Cube or Lament Configuration-like puzzle box, with runes engraved on metal rings that I can reconfigure to reveal different spells. (There will be definite Phantasm vibes when I start using Manifest Mind to send this floating metal orb out into the world.) As such, my "Wizardly Quill" is actually more like magical jeweler's tools, so that it can engrave new runes and rings as needed. No ink involved at all. Instead, the DM allows me to mark and unmark stone and metal surfaces with the "quill" rather than parchment
Question: how does this affect the cost of copying new spells into the "spellbook", per the rules for Wizardly Quill?
Answer: it doesn't, because the rules for Wizardly Quill don't affect cost at all
Flavor is flavor, and mechanics are mechanics
This is all homebrew so you can do whatever you want at that point.
The Wizardly Quill provides a more specific rule saying the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level . The cost you must spend is not specifically addressed therefore the general rule for it still apply, including what it represent. You can disagree but that's how Specific VS General works.
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
Nobody's going to look at it like that. That's a dumb way of looking at it. The quill doesn't say it has anything to do with the cost, why the hell would it supersede it? It's like saying the quill also lets you scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard, just because nothing in the quill says that you can't scribe 9th level spells.
That's absurd. This is a completely valid way of looking at it -- it's not "dumb" at all. The original Rule spends a couple of paragraphs explaining logistically what the Wizard is actually doing to complete this task while following this process. Then a paragraph begins which explains the costs involved in completing this task in terms of time and money. The Feature then explains that if you use the quill for the transcription there is a new cost involved in terms of time and money to complete the task. This is completely logical. It is not the only interpretation but it is perfectly valid. In that case, the Feature doesn't HAVE to say anything about the monetary cost if that cost is 0. Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
Obviously we don't say "0 gp" for everything that doesn't cost money, like short rests. There isn't a hard rule basis for those things costing money in the first place, and a lack of a suggestion of change means that there's no reason to assume a change at all.
Like, not every spell that doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on has to say that it doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on. The assumption is that it doesn't change things that it doesn't say it changes. You shouldn't assume that anybody affected by such a spell experiences 0 gs just because the spells don't say they experience 1 g. Conversely, if a spell were meant to inflict someone with a complete lack of gravity, it would have to say so. It wouldn't be able to just say nothing about gravity and assume that the reader automatically equates a lack of statement to 0.
The suggestion that the quill would then allow you to scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard is completely disingenuous. That is obviously not possible. That is already covered by the Rule here:
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.
You know this already, so please try to stay within the realm of actual productive discussion.
Right, so when I suggest that a rule changes a different rule that it says absolutely nothing about, that's me being "disingenuous," but when you do it, it's "a completely valid way of looking at it."
You pointed to a rule that says "a 1st level Wizard can't transcribe 9th level spells" to dispute my point, and yet you ignore the fact that a similar rule exists that says "it costs 50gp per spell level to scribe spells." You claim that the latter rule is overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it, and you also claim that the former rule isn't overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it.
As a pattern, maybe, but not as a rule. If you can point me to the text, in black and white, that says reducing the time reduces the cost in equal amount, then there'd be a rule. Otherwise, this means nothing. "Per level" doesn't matter when we're talking about changes to time, and possibly cost, outside of spell levels entirely.
Ok, so I directly quote the text and post the example which mathematically shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent and you respond by asking me to post a quote that shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent? I mean, are you really asking me to just cut-and-paste what I just wrote? That's a little weird, but ok:
There isn't a rule that explicitly says that the costs are proportional. As you've shown twice now, there's a rule that implies that they're proportional, but if the rule that implies that they're proportional is overridden (like by something that says that the time it takes to scribe spells becomes 2 minutes per level), there's no part of the text that comes in to enforce the idea that they're proportional.
This is something that hasn't been discussed much in the thread: it's the player's goddamn feature, not the DM's. It says the things that it does mechanically, and then the player is supposed to describe how those effects take place for their character. Why would the DM be deciding any of this?
Are you actually asking? Because this answer has already been provided also:
How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves
. . .
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
Right. So they describe "where their adventurers are and what's around them," and they also describe "the results of the adventurers' actions." I couldn't help but notice that neither of those give claim to describing features to the DM. Where's the rule that says the DM describes the entirety of their adventurers' classes?
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)
Are some people at the point in their 'agreement' that they're questioning if the DM adjudicates the rules of the game? I think that matter is largely already settled, circa... idk, every time they've ever released a new edition, including the first.
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.
Are some people at the point in their 'agreement' that they're questioning if the DM adjudicates the rules of the game? I think that matter is largely already settled, circa... idk, every time they've ever released a new edition, including the first.
It's not about a DM adjudicating the rules of the game, it's about a player describing the flavor of their own feature.
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)
Adding new abilities to a feature isn't "flavoring" it, it is homebrewing it. This requires DM adjudication as it is a rule change.
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.
The Wizardly Quill provides a more specific rule saying the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level . The cost you must spend is not specifically addressed therefore the general rule for it still apply, including what it represent. You can disagree but that's how Specific VS General works.
Naw. Makes no sense.
The quill doesn't require ink. Any, ink. Not regular ink, not fine ink. It says in black and white that it does not need ink. The entire class and categories of items that can be collectively called an "ink"? It doesn't need them.
How is this hard? What is elusive about this?
Needs, no, ink. None. of any kind. Ever.
If you gotta pay money for inks. but then a rule says you don't need inks. Guess what? You don't gotta pay no money. This is really not complicated guys.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The Wizardly Quill provides a more specific rule saying the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level . The cost you must spend is not specifically addressed therefore the general rule for it still apply, including what it represent. You can disagree but that's how Specific VS General works.
Naw. Makes no sense.
The quill doesn't require ink. Any, ink. Not regular ink, not fine ink. It says in black and white that it does not need ink. The entire class and categories of items that can be collectively called an "ink"? It doesn't need them.
How is this hard? What is elusive about this?
Needs, no, ink. None. of any kind. Ever.
If you gotta pay money for inks. but then a rule says you don't need inks. Guess what? You don't gotta pay no money. This is really not complicated guys.
If there's a sword, and the sword doesn't require mayonnaise to work, but then you want to spread mayonnaise with the sword, would you argue that the sword would apparate mayonnaise for the purpose of spreading? Or would you argue that swords do require mayonnaise?
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)
Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
But in a similar example, if a method of travel states it takes 6 hours of travel time and 100 gp, and you have a feature that reduces all travel time by half, that doesn't grant a discount unless it states explicitly that it does.
In fact, the Light spell doesn't explicitly say anything about exposing Hidden creatures, and the rules for Hiding do not explicitly state what happens if there is any change in lighting within an area. The more I think about it, the more that I really like my example. It is a lot closer to "perfect" than I originally thought when I wrote it.
It *does* talk about being able to hide in darkness, and that light negates darkness, and that you can't hide in plain sight. All of those spell out an explicit interaction: Lighting an open area where a creature is hiding just in the darkness negates the hide.
Are some people at the point in their 'agreement' that they're questioning if the DM adjudicates the rules of the game? I think that matter is largely already settled, circa... idk, every time they've ever released a new edition, including the first.
DM or not, the default rules are RAW. Any change to that, any house rule, is homebrew, even if it comes from the DM.
Side note, was just DMing a game a bit ago. They thought this discussion was hilarious, and the one who actually plays a Scribes wizard just said "I WISH it worked like that!"
Ok, I've decided that part of the reason why this discussion is devolving is because the word "cost" is being used to mean too many different things. For example, some things cost time. Some other things cost money. And yet other things cost time and money.
I've found a word that a random online dictionary says covers that third category:
expenditure: an amount of money, time, or effort that is spent
I will try to remember to use this word when referencing this third category.
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp.
becomes:
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level.
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
Nobody's going to look at it like that. That's a dumb way of looking at it. The quill doesn't say it has anything to do with the cost, why the hell would it supersede it? It's like saying the quill also lets you scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard, just because nothing in the quill says that you can't scribe 9th level spells.
That's absurd. This is a completely valid way of looking at it -- it's not "dumb" at all. The original Rule spends a couple of paragraphs explaining logistically what the Wizard is actually doing to complete this task while following this process. Then a paragraph begins which explains the costs involved in completing this task in terms of time and money. The Feature then explains that if you use the quill for the transcription there is a new cost involved in terms of time and money to complete the task. This is completely logical. It is not the only interpretation but it is perfectly valid. In that case, the Feature doesn't HAVE to say anything about the monetary cost if that cost is 0. Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
Obviously we don't say "0 gp" for everything that doesn't cost money, like short rests. There isn't a hard rule basis for those things costing money in the first place, and a lack of a suggestion of change means that there's no reason to assume a change at all.
Like, not every spell that doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on has to say that it doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on. The assumption is that it doesn't change things that it doesn't say it changes. You shouldn't assume that anybody affected by such a spell experiences 0 gs just because the spells don't say they experience 1 g. Conversely, if a spell were meant to inflict someone with a complete lack of gravity, it would have to say so. It wouldn't be able to just say nothing about gravity and assume that the reader automatically equates a lack of statement to 0.
You've missed the point.
IF (and this "if" is up for debate) the Feature is replacing the clause in the Rule that defines the expenditure (see above) of the process, then the Feature does NOT have to explicitly list a monetary cost if that cost is 0. That's just grammar.
For example:
If the Rule says "The expenditure is 2 hours and 50 gold pieces."
and this gets replaced by "The expenditure is 2 minutes."
Then that is a grammatically correct way to specify that the time cost is 2 minutes and the monetary cost is 0 gp.
Your gravity example simply doesn't work like that so it doesn't apply here as a proper counterexample.
Right, so when I suggest that a rule changes a different rule that it says absolutely nothing about, that's me being "disingenuous," but when you do it, it's "a completely valid way of looking at it."
You pointed to a rule that says "a 1st level Wizard can't transcribe 9th level spells" to dispute my point, and yet you ignore the fact that a similar rule exists that says "it costs 50gp per spell level to scribe spells." You claim that the latter rule is overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it, and you also claim that the former rule isn't overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it.
There isn't a rule that explicitly says that the costs are proportional. As you've shown twice now, there's a rule that implies that they're proportional, but if the rule that implies that they're proportional is overridden (like by something that says that the time it takes to scribe spells becomes 2 minutes per level), there's no part of the text that comes in to enforce the idea that they're proportional.
If you're really going to stick by that then there won't be much else to say on this side topic. The fact that the time spent is proportional to the money spent is explained by the Rule as clear as day. The text typically goes out of its way to avoid being redundant so it's not going to restate the concept in different words. That's an unrealistic expectation.
Besides, this argument makes no sense. If the change really is supposed to be "2 hours" becomes "2 minutes" while simultaneously staying at 50 gp, it would STILL be proportional to the monetary cost:
2 minutes, 50 gp . . . 4 minutes, 100 gp . . . 6 minutes, 150 gp
But the thing is, you can't get to this scale from that other scale because the experimentation has not changed -- the quill only performs the transcription. So the cost for the experimentation stays on the old scale. 1 hour costs 40 gp . . . 2 hours costs 80 gp and so on. And of course, 0 hours costs 0 gp.
Right. So they describe "where their adventurers are and what's around them," and they also describe "the results of the adventurers' actions." I couldn't help but notice that neither of those give claim to describing features to the DM. Where's the rule that says the DM describes the entirety of their adventurers' classes?
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this and how this is on-topic to the discussion. But, if you'll notice, when I quoted the "How To Play" rule, I skipped over Step 2 at the time since at that time it wasn't relevant to the discussion. If you're looking for when it's the Players' time to interact with the game, it's during Step 2, which says this:
Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
But in a similar example, if a method of travel states it takes 6 hours of travel time and 100 gp, and you have a feature that reduces all travel time by half, that doesn't grant a discount unless it states explicitly that it does.
Ummm, but . . . the entire point of the example is that the act of traveling has no monetary cost. [ hand swooshing over a head ]
In fact, the Light spell doesn't explicitly say anything about exposing Hidden creatures, and the rules for Hiding do not explicitly state what happens if there is any change in lighting within an area. The more I think about it, the more that I really like my example. It is a lot closer to "perfect" than I originally thought when I wrote it.
It *does* talk about being able to hide in darkness, and that light negates darkness, and that you can't hide in plain sight. All of those spell out an explicit interaction: Lighting an open area where a creature is hiding just in the darkness negates the hide.
YES!!! Exactly! Thank you for making my point for me. Now we are getting somewhere.
Are some people at the point in their 'agreement' that they're questioning if the DM adjudicates the rules of the game? I think that matter is largely already settled, circa... idk, every time they've ever released a new edition, including the first.
DM or not, the default rules are RAW. Any change to that, any house rule, is homebrew, even if it comes from the DM.
Side note, was just DMing a game a bit ago. They thought this discussion was hilarious, and the one who actually plays a Scribes wizard just said "I WISH it worked like that!"
As always, you guys are free to play however you want.
IF (and this "if" is up for debate) the Feature is replacing the clause in the Rule that defines the expenditure (see above) of the process, then the Feature does NOT have to explicitly list a monetary cost if that cost is 0. That's just grammar.
The only reason there could be for the feature replacing the gold cost as well as the time is if it said it replaced the gold cost as well as the time, which it doesn't. So no, the "if" is not up for debate. Well, I suppose it technically is, because we're debating it, but it really shouldn't be.
There isn't a rule that explicitly says that the costs are proportional. As you've shown twice now, there's a rule that implies that they're proportional, but if the rule that implies that they're proportional is overridden (like by something that says that the time it takes to scribe spells becomes 2 minutes per level), there's no part of the text that comes in to enforce the idea that they're proportional.
If you're really going to stick by that then there won't be much else to say on this side topic. The fact that the time spent is proportional to the money spent is explained by the Rule as clear as day. The text typically goes out of its way to avoid being redundant so it's not going to restate the concept in different words. That's an unrealistic expectation.
Besides, this argument makes no sense. If the change really is supposed to be "2 hours" becomes "2 minutes" while simultaneously staying at 50 gp, it would STILL be proportional to the monetary cost:
2 minutes, 50 gp . . . 4 minutes, 100 gp . . . 6 minutes, 150 gp
But the thing is, you can't get to this scale from that other scale because the experimentation has not changed -- the quill only performs the transcription. So the cost for the experimentation stays on the old scale. 1 hour costs 40 gp . . . 2 hours costs 80 gp and so on. And of course, 0 hours costs 0 gp.
Maybe "proportional" wasn't the right word, but I think "scale" gets the idea across better. The time and the money both independently scale off of the spell level, not off of one another. A 1st level spell takes 2 hours. A 1st level spell costs 50 gp. A 2nd level spell takes 4 hours. A 2nd level spell costs 100 gp. The amount of time it takes does not dictate the amount of gold it costs (nor vice versa), but instead it's very explicitly shown that they are both dictated by the spell level, so changing the proportion of one to the spell level would not change the proportion of the other. For all you know, the "material components" could all be burned in a brazier within the first minute of the process, so there's no reason to believe spending more/less time means using more/fewer material components.
Like, 5G coverage and Coronavirus heat maps heavily correlating doesn't mean that the one causes the other, because they both actually scale off of population density. If 5G coverage were to suddenly disappear, that doesn't mean that Coronavirus would have to disappear with it.
Right. So they describe "where their adventurers are and what's around them," and they also describe "the results of the adventurers' actions." I couldn't help but notice that neither of those give claim to describing features to the DM. Where's the rule that says the DM describes the entirety of their adventurers' classes?
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this and how this is on-topic to the discussion. But, if you'll notice, when I quoted the "How To Play" rule, I skipped over Step 2 at the time since at that time it wasn't relevant to the discussion. If you're looking for when it's the Players' time to interact with the game, it's during Step 2, which says this:
2. The players describe what they want to do.
You said something along the lines of "you should explain to your players how the flavor matches the mechanics," so I raised you that maybe the players should explain that themselves.
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 the Rule says "The expenditure is 2 hours and 50 gold pieces."
and this gets replaced by "The expenditure is 2 minutes."
Then that is a grammatically correct way to specify that the time cost is 2 minutes and the monetary cost is 0 gp.
You might have a point here if the Wizardly Quill feature replacing text from the transcription section didn't explicitly state that it is talking about time. The fact that it calls out time but not money means it isn't replacing the entire line, it's replacing the time portion.
Ummm, but . . . the entire point of the example is that the act of traveling has no monetary cost. [ hand swooshing over a head ]
Rather appropriate for the hand to swoosh over your own. I pointed out an example where the method of travel charged money. The mere act has no cost, but the method used does. The same applies to transcription, even if you cut the time down.
YES!!! Exactly! Thank you for making my point for me. Now we are getting somewhere.
You seem to think I made your point, but I'm pointing out interactions which are explicitly stated. Ultimately, the "specific" in this Specific Beats General instance applies only to the time, not the gold cost.
The Wizardly Quill provides a more specific rule saying the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level . The cost you must spend is not specifically addressed therefore the general rule for it still apply, including what it represent. You can disagree but that's how Specific VS General works.
Naw. Makes no sense.
The quill doesn't require ink. Any, ink. Not regular ink, not fine ink. It says in black and white that it does not need ink. The entire class and categories of items that can be collectively called an "ink"? It doesn't need them.
How is this hard? What is elusive about this?
Needs, no, ink. None. of any kind. Ever.
If you gotta pay money for inks. but then a rule says you don't need inks. Guess what? You don't gotta pay no money. This is really not complicated guys.
If there's a sword, and the sword doesn't require mayonnaise to work, but then you want to spread mayonnaise with the sword, would you argue that the sword would apparate mayonnaise for the purpose of spreading? Or would you argue that swords do require mayonnaise?
Let's say there is a sword that says exactly:
The sword doesn’t require mayonnaise. When you schmear with it, it produces mayonnaise in a color of your choice on the schmeared surface.
Then yeah, the mayo appears during the process of schmearing, right onto the bread's surface. Exactly like it says it does.
This whole thing seem to be down to refusing to believe the magic quill can do what it literally says it can do.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, can you rephrase? What does being able to prepare a spell from your spell book have to do with the cost of scribing it?
How can copying a spell and replacing a spell have the same time requirement but different costs?
What does the 10 gp cost represent, "even if [ the quill ] produces ink"?
No, this is wrong for two reasons.
First, the Feature doesn't have to state that cost is reduced if it is a direct consequence of what IS stated. This sort of thing happens all over the place in the game.
As a very quick and probably not perfect example: You walk into a totally dark room, touch a table in the middle of the room and cast Light. The room is no longer in total darkness as per what is stated in the spell description. However, in this case, there was a creature Hiding in the corner of the room -- he was taking advantage of the heavily obscured area created by the darkness. As soon as Light was cast, the DM rules that you see the creature right away and that the creature is no longer Hidden. Note that the Light spell doesn't say anything about exposing Hidden creatures. It doesn't have to say that. It is a direct consequence of what it DOES say.
Second, it is equally valid to make the opposite argument -- that if it was intended to have the cost, it would tell you that in plain text. Just like it is stated explicitly in the 1/2 time, 1/2 gold features.
Think of it like this: The relevant portion of the Rule which gets superseded is this:
Many people are assuming that the Feature replaces a portion of this text like this:
becomes:
In fact, it is probably more correct to assume that using the Feature causes this change:
becomes:
Maybe a lot of pages of this forum thread would have been saved if we were looking at it like this.
Yeah, I get what you're saying there but I just don't see it that way. The Feature is fundamentally changing the process somehow. It has to, otherwise it's not possible since the new timeframes do not align with the time required by the activities listed in the default process. So, the Feature explicitly states that there is a new timeframe and this has direct consequences.
Ok, there are two issues here. First, the "material components" described in the Rule for scribing spells has nothing at all to do with the Material Component required to cast some spells. Unfortunately the same words are used, but these are totally different things. It's like saying "fruit" when what we are really talking about is apples and oranges.
Second, in fact, the cost of material components and fine inks used to scribe a spell IS directly proportional to the time spent scribing it. The Rule explicitly states this with the phrase "per level".
Example:
2 hours, 50 gp x 1 = 2 hours, 50 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 2 = 4 hours, 100 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 3 = 6 hours, 150 gp
and so on. The time spent and the cost involved ARE directly proportional.
Yeah, I've been trying to avoid the fine inks argument for a while since I find that aspect of this debate to be completely silly. It's painfully obvious to me that you are meant to use the Quill's ink to scribe spells. Whether that's fully RAW or if there was some oversight and it turns out to be just RAI -- that's a topic for another day. The case has been made, but it's mostly been ignored. I'm sure I'll get pulled back into debating the ink, but I personally find the topic of the material components to be a much more interesting discussion.
Besides that, I might be missing the point that's being made here. I'm not sure how the ink debate impacts anything here? If a DM agrees with me that the deciphering phase has been eliminated by the new timeframe, BUT that the Wizard must still pay for the ink -- then go ahead and make a ruling that just charges for the cost of the ink. What am I missing?
Ok, I am with you on this and I do agree with this. But, this sort of flies in the face of some people's arguments that the cost referenced in the Rule is a cost to perform the scribing activity, like clicking on a "Scribe Now" button that has a cost.
If we are at least now in agreement that the cost referenced in the Rule represents the cost of buying material components and fine inks, then I feel like we are getting somewhere.
At that point, yes, I would agree with a DM Ruling that allows a character to purchase and potentially stock up on material components and fine inks and then add them to their inventory, assuming they are able to carry it (there is no weight associated with these things so that would require another DM Ruling).
Hmm, I'm really not sure where you are getting this from. I have repeatedly said that when it comes to making the DM Ruling to explain what is going on in the game world that if you can come up with some other Ruling that makes sense to your players for your game world then you should just roll with that. I happen to think that my Ruling is the best Ruling and I have explained why. Every DM is free to rule things however they want.
But, the point is: If this situation comes up and your player asks you point blank "But, why do I still have to pay for the material components that are used to practice and experiment while deciphering the spell when the Quill is able to transcribe the spell in 2 minutes?" You should be prepared to answer this.
Ok, that's a fair stance. This should have been more clearly written either way. I think that I just don't have this same reaction to it as you do because I DO believe that the designers DID intend for there to be no cost. So my own reaction to what the designers must have been thinking tilts the other way. Something like this:
. . . the designers, having decided that using the quill would cost just as much as not using it, decided to not say that the quill's ink cannot be used for scribing and that the cost of deciphering the spell would remain unchanged, despite the fact that the timeframe to conduct experiments has been drastically reduced or eliminated. To me, my gut reaction is that this is just as unlikely as what you are saying that you think is unlikely about the designer's intent above.
For Features that yield 1/2 time and 1/2 cost, I do not assume that the experimentation is eliminated. My own Ruling to explain this change is that the time for experimentation is reduced to 22.5 minutes (which costs 15 gp) and the time required to encode and write down the spell is reduced to 37.5 minutes and this costs 10 gp (the same number of words are being written down so the same amount of ink is used). This isn't pretty, but this is how it breaks down mathematically. It can be explained by realizing that these Wizards have developed additional expertise in a particular school of magic and therefore deciphering and encoding these types of spells is easier for this Wizard than it would be for a typical Wizard.
And no, it doesn't make sense to not explicitly list these new prices. The prices have changed to a specific new amount so this would have to be explicitly stated, otherwise there would be no way to know what the new price is.
1- ''Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.'' If you haven't spent the respective cost, to which the Wizardly Quill doesn't change, you can't prepare the spell copied.
2- Because copying a spell - new or not - when using a Wizardly Quill specifically say ''the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per level.''
3- Replacing one ''is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier'', so there it explain what it represent, ''The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it,
as well as the fine inks you need to record it''Nobody's going to look at it like that. That's a dumb way of looking at it. The quill doesn't say it has anything to do with the cost, why the hell would it supersede it? It's like saying the quill also lets you scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard, just because nothing in the quill says that you can't scribe 9th level spells.
I'm aware. That wasn't the crux of my argument, that was just something I said to point out how baseless the assumption that time is directly proportional to material component cost is.
As a pattern, maybe, but not as a rule. If you can point me to the text, in black and white, that says reducing the time reduces the cost in equal amount, then there'd be a rule. Otherwise, this means nothing. "Per level" doesn't matter when we're talking about changes to time, and possibly cost, outside of spell levels entirely.
I don't think I need to be prepared to answer this, actually. This is something that hasn't been discussed much in the thread: it's the player's goddamn feature, not the DM's. It says the things that it does mechanically, and then the player is supposed to describe how those effects take place for their character. Why would the DM be deciding any of this?
Well, your gut reaction is wrong. Whatever. The fact is, there's not too much reason to assume that the designers intended something that isn't a part of RAW unless they say so.
But of course, this perfectly reasonable sentence doesn't apply to Wizardly Quill because...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The rules for Hiding actually cover this just fine, so there's no conflict. You'd need a far better example to have any point at all here.
This would only be correct if it was a brand new rule, but it's not. It's only replacing a snippet of text in an existing rule, which is why only the part explicitly mentioned is altered, not the entire line. It's calling out a portion of the line by mentioning the time, and that's all you can accurately look at for this.
The fact still remains that this is a game first and foremost, and that's effectively exactly what you're doing.
I make a multiclass Order of Scribes wizard/Clockwork Soul sorcerer. After discussion with my DM, we decide my "spellbook" is actually a really intricate and ornate Rubik's Cube or Lament Configuration-like puzzle box, with runes engraved on metal rings that I can reconfigure to reveal different spells. (There will be definite Phantasm vibes when I start using Manifest Mind to send this floating metal orb out into the world.) As such, my "Wizardly Quill" is actually more like magical jeweler's tools, so that it can engrave new runes and rings as needed. No ink involved at all. Instead, the DM allows me to mark and unmark stone and metal surfaces with the "quill" rather than parchment
Question: how does this affect the cost of copying new spells into the "spellbook", per the rules for Wizardly Quill?
Answer: it doesn't, because the rules for Wizardly Quill don't affect cost at all
Flavor is flavor, and mechanics are mechanics
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)
No, I do not agree with your interpretation in #1. First, the Wizardly Quill feature very well may change the cost as noted in my previous post, like so:
becomes:
In addition, that line that you quoted is in the context of completing the task described. It's explaining that this is the last step in that process. If you have some completely different way of adding a spell to a spell book then none of this applies anyway.
As for your interpretation #2, you haven't answered the question. You are noting that the time requirement is the same for two tasks. One of which contains all of the same action steps and costs of the second task, and also presumably includes additional steps which would require more cost. You have not explained how this paradox is possible.
The interpretation #3 makes no sense. That section of the rule explicitly states that you already understand your own notation and you already know how to cast the spell. No experimentation is required and no material components for experimentation are used.
That's absurd. This is a completely valid way of looking at it -- it's not "dumb" at all. The original Rule spends a couple of paragraphs explaining logistically what the Wizard is actually doing to complete this task while following this process. Then a paragraph begins which explains the costs involved in completing this task in terms of time and money. The Feature then explains that if you use the quill for the transcription there is a new cost involved in terms of time and money to complete the task. This is completely logical. It is not the only interpretation but it is perfectly valid. In that case, the Feature doesn't HAVE to say anything about the monetary cost if that cost is 0. Like, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp" and we don't say "I will stop for a short rest which requires 1 hour and 0 gp" and so on.
The suggestion that the quill would then allow you to scribe 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard is completely disingenuous. That is obviously not possible. That is already covered by the Rule here:
You know this already, so please try to stay within the realm of actual productive discussion.
Ok, so I directly quote the text and post the example which mathematically shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent and you respond by asking me to post a quote that shows that the cost is directly proportional to the time spent? I mean, are you really asking me to just cut-and-paste what I just wrote? That's a little weird, but ok:
in fact, the cost of material components and fine inks used to scribe a spell IS directly proportional to the time spent scribing it. The Rule explicitly states this with the phrase "per level".
Example:
2 hours, 50 gp x 1 = 2 hours, 50 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 2 = 4 hours, 100 gp
2 hours, 50 gp x 3 = 6 hours, 150 gp
and so on. The time spent and the cost involved ARE directly proportional.
Are you actually asking? Because this answer has already been provided also:
Ummmmm, ok? It's always great to see such intelligent, well thought out responses which of course are backed up by facts and direct quotes from the text. Awesome.
This has already been covered. First, it doesn't always make sense to explicitly list a cost of 0 gp to complete a task. For example, we don't say "traveling from this city to that city will require 6 hours of travel time and 0 gp".
In addition, as covered in previous posts, no actual prices for materials are changed. You simply don't need to buy them due to the new timeframes involved. So, it is an implicit consequence of what is explicitly stated in the Feature.
This was an example of how a rule doesn't explicitly state something, and yet something specific happens (implicitly) as a direct consequence of what IS stated.
In fact, the Light spell doesn't explicitly say anything about exposing Hidden creatures, and the rules for Hiding do not explicitly state what happens if there is any change in lighting within an area. The more I think about it, the more that I really like my example. It is a lot closer to "perfect" than I originally thought when I wrote it.
There are now two reasons why this is incorrect. First, it might be the case that the entire line is meant to be altered as explained above.
Second, using the Feature has implicit consequences. Something about the process must have changed, otherwise it is impossible for the Feature and the Rule to coexist. What exactly has changed is up to the DM since it is not explained by the text.
Ok great, so that's one vote for the "Scribe Now" button, despite the fact that the Rule explicitly states that the monetary cost represents the purchase of material components and fine inks.
This is all homebrew so you can do whatever you want at that point.
The Wizardly Quill provides a more specific rule saying the time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level . The cost you must spend is not specifically addressed therefore the general rule for it still apply, including what it represent. You can disagree but that's how Specific VS General works.
With all due respect, this is a vote for the "Let's bury our heads in the sand" approach.
If two rules exist that obviously cannot coexist, there are two solutions:
1. We determine that one rule supersedes the other such as what happens with specific vs general
Or:
2. The DM must resolve the situation which caused this to happen.
By far a much worse solution than either of these is to simply ignore it.
Example:
Rule 1 says: The area is filled with bright light.
Rule 2 says: The area is filled with total darkness.
Quite obviously both of these things cannot exist at the same time. So, either:
1. One of these rules supersedes the other.
Or:
2. The DM has to make a ruling which explains this situation.
By far the worst option would be for the DM to say: "Well guys! That's what the rules say! On your mark, get set, go!"
Obviously we don't say "0 gp" for everything that doesn't cost money, like short rests. There isn't a hard rule basis for those things costing money in the first place, and a lack of a suggestion of change means that there's no reason to assume a change at all.
Like, not every spell that doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on has to say that it doesn't change how gravity affects those it is cast on. The assumption is that it doesn't change things that it doesn't say it changes. You shouldn't assume that anybody affected by such a spell experiences 0 gs just because the spells don't say they experience 1 g. Conversely, if a spell were meant to inflict someone with a complete lack of gravity, it would have to say so. It wouldn't be able to just say nothing about gravity and assume that the reader automatically equates a lack of statement to 0.
Right, so when I suggest that a rule changes a different rule that it says absolutely nothing about, that's me being "disingenuous," but when you do it, it's "a completely valid way of looking at it."
You pointed to a rule that says "a 1st level Wizard can't transcribe 9th level spells" to dispute my point, and yet you ignore the fact that a similar rule exists that says "it costs 50gp per spell level to scribe spells." You claim that the latter rule is overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it, and you also claim that the former rule isn't overruled because there isn't any text in the feature that so much as mentions it.
There isn't a rule that explicitly says that the costs are proportional. As you've shown twice now, there's a rule that implies that they're proportional, but if the rule that implies that they're proportional is overridden (like by something that says that the time it takes to scribe spells becomes 2 minutes per level), there's no part of the text that comes in to enforce the idea that they're proportional.
Right. So they describe "where their adventurers are and what's around them," and they also describe "the results of the adventurers' actions." I couldn't help but notice that neither of those give claim to describing features to the DM. Where's the rule that says the DM describes the entirety of their adventurers' classes?
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)
Are some people at the point in their 'agreement' that they're questioning if the DM adjudicates the rules of the game? I think that matter is largely already settled, circa... idk, every time they've ever released a new edition, including the first.
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.
It's not about a DM adjudicating the rules of the game, it's about a player describing the flavor of their own feature.
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)
Adding new abilities to a feature isn't "flavoring" it, it is homebrewing it. This requires DM adjudication as it is a rule change.
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.
Naw. Makes no sense.
The quill doesn't require ink. Any, ink. Not regular ink, not fine ink. It says in black and white that it does not need ink. The entire class and categories of items that can be collectively called an "ink"? It doesn't need them.
How is this hard? What is elusive about this?
Needs, no, ink. None. of any kind. Ever.
If you gotta pay money for inks. but then a rule says you don't need inks. Guess what? You don't gotta pay no money. This is really not complicated guys.
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.
If there's a sword, and the sword doesn't require mayonnaise to work, but then you want to spread mayonnaise with the sword, would you argue that the sword would apparate mayonnaise for the purpose of spreading? Or would you argue that swords do require mayonnaise?
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 only it was just ink that was needed to copy new spells into your spellbook.
But in a similar example, if a method of travel states it takes 6 hours of travel time and 100 gp, and you have a feature that reduces all travel time by half, that doesn't grant a discount unless it states explicitly that it does.
It *does* talk about being able to hide in darkness, and that light negates darkness, and that you can't hide in plain sight. All of those spell out an explicit interaction: Lighting an open area where a creature is hiding just in the darkness negates the hide.
DM or not, the default rules are RAW. Any change to that, any house rule, is homebrew, even if it comes from the DM.
Side note, was just DMing a game a bit ago. They thought this discussion was hilarious, and the one who actually plays a Scribes wizard just said "I WISH it worked like that!"
Ok, I've decided that part of the reason why this discussion is devolving is because the word "cost" is being used to mean too many different things. For example, some things cost time. Some other things cost money. And yet other things cost time and money.
I've found a word that a random online dictionary says covers that third category:
expenditure: an amount of money, time, or effort that is spent
I will try to remember to use this word when referencing this third category.
You've missed the point.
IF (and this "if" is up for debate) the Feature is replacing the clause in the Rule that defines the expenditure (see above) of the process, then the Feature does NOT have to explicitly list a monetary cost if that cost is 0. That's just grammar.
For example:
If the Rule says "The expenditure is 2 hours and 50 gold pieces."
and this gets replaced by "The expenditure is 2 minutes."
Then that is a grammatically correct way to specify that the time cost is 2 minutes and the monetary cost is 0 gp.
Your gravity example simply doesn't work like that so it doesn't apply here as a proper counterexample.
See the above explanation.
If you're really going to stick by that then there won't be much else to say on this side topic. The fact that the time spent is proportional to the money spent is explained by the Rule as clear as day. The text typically goes out of its way to avoid being redundant so it's not going to restate the concept in different words. That's an unrealistic expectation.
Besides, this argument makes no sense. If the change really is supposed to be "2 hours" becomes "2 minutes" while simultaneously staying at 50 gp, it would STILL be proportional to the monetary cost:
2 minutes, 50 gp . . . 4 minutes, 100 gp . . . 6 minutes, 150 gp
But the thing is, you can't get to this scale from that other scale because the experimentation has not changed -- the quill only performs the transcription. So the cost for the experimentation stays on the old scale. 1 hour costs 40 gp . . . 2 hours costs 80 gp and so on. And of course, 0 hours costs 0 gp.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this and how this is on-topic to the discussion. But, if you'll notice, when I quoted the "How To Play" rule, I skipped over Step 2 at the time since at that time it wasn't relevant to the discussion. If you're looking for when it's the Players' time to interact with the game, it's during Step 2, which says this:
Actually, ink isn't needed at all when the Feature is used.
Ummm, but . . . the entire point of the example is that the act of traveling has no monetary cost. [ hand swooshing over a head ]
YES!!! Exactly! Thank you for making my point for me. Now we are getting somewhere.
As always, you guys are free to play however you want.
The only reason there could be for the feature replacing the gold cost as well as the time is if it said it replaced the gold cost as well as the time, which it doesn't. So no, the "if" is not up for debate. Well, I suppose it technically is, because we're debating it, but it really shouldn't be.
Maybe "proportional" wasn't the right word, but I think "scale" gets the idea across better. The time and the money both independently scale off of the spell level, not off of one another. A 1st level spell takes 2 hours. A 1st level spell costs 50 gp. A 2nd level spell takes 4 hours. A 2nd level spell costs 100 gp. The amount of time it takes does not dictate the amount of gold it costs (nor vice versa), but instead it's very explicitly shown that they are both dictated by the spell level, so changing the proportion of one to the spell level would not change the proportion of the other. For all you know, the "material components" could all be burned in a brazier within the first minute of the process, so there's no reason to believe spending more/less time means using more/fewer material components.
Like, 5G coverage and Coronavirus heat maps heavily correlating doesn't mean that the one causes the other, because they both actually scale off of population density. If 5G coverage were to suddenly disappear, that doesn't mean that Coronavirus would have to disappear with it.
You said something along the lines of "you should explain to your players how the flavor matches the mechanics," so I raised you that maybe the players should explain that themselves.
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)
You might have a point here if the Wizardly Quill feature replacing text from the transcription section didn't explicitly state that it is talking about time. The fact that it calls out time but not money means it isn't replacing the entire line, it's replacing the time portion.
Rather appropriate for the hand to swoosh over your own. I pointed out an example where the method of travel charged money. The mere act has no cost, but the method used does. The same applies to transcription, even if you cut the time down.
You seem to think I made your point, but I'm pointing out interactions which are explicitly stated. Ultimately, the "specific" in this Specific Beats General instance applies only to the time, not the gold cost.
Let's say there is a sword that says exactly:
Then yeah, the mayo appears during the process of schmearing, right onto the bread's surface. Exactly like it says it does.
This whole thing seem to be down to refusing to believe the magic quill can do what it literally says it can do.
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.