Touche. I've changed my mind since then. My main argument at that time is that the DM has to make a Ruling since only changing the total time required creates a paradox where the new rule ends up conflicting with itself. Keep in mind that this comment posted above was in response to the concept that the Feature would replace the entirety of the text within the My Spellbook Sidebar of the Wizard class description, which is indeed not how specific vs general works.
But since then I've realized that the text within the Feature can very well stand in as a replacement for the clause which describes the expenditure per level. Because the new expenditure conflicts with the old expenditure, that clause is superseded. As much as people don't want it to be, this is a valid interpretation of the Feature and a valid usage of specific vs general and it results in a much cleaner solution that does not rely on having to make a DM Ruling to explain something that should have never existed within the Rule in the first place.
Quite obviously whether or not I complete this research errand to everyone's satisfaction is proof of absolutely nothing related to this discussion, but that should go without saying.
Then why are you demanding other people do it, other than to provoke a response?
These are very common tactics, you know
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)
Quite obviously whether or not I complete this research errand to everyone's satisfaction is proof of absolutely nothing related to this discussion, but that should go without saying.
Then why are you demanding other people do it, other than to provoke a response?
Instead, you guys should try to find an argument as to why you believe the Feature only supersedes the time cost but not the expenditure in such a way that does NOT mention the fact that the words of the Feature do not mention money... But don't give up -- there may still be other good arguments as to why only the time cost is superseded, but it would be nice to know of a legitimate reason for this.
Why is the onus of proof falling on us? You should give an example of a feature that exists within the rules that overrules a part of the text that it doesn't say it overrules to show that it's a valid way of reading the rules.
You told other people what kind of argument you might deign to find acceptable, and dismissed anything that didn't meet your standards as not "legitimate"
Of course, had someone actually jumped through your hoop and produced such an argument, there's little reason to believe you wouldn't have simply held up another hoop
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)
I had just spent probably about a dozen posts trying to explain to people the concept that it's possible to write a statement that describes the contents of a basket full of apples and oranges that includes just apples, and when that happens the default value for the number of oranges is 0. And sure enough, someone will chime in with some variation of "well, the basket didn't say anything about oranges so there are still oranges in there". This conclusion is simply incorrect.
So, the statement that I was making was that since that conclusion is incorrect, it would be better to come up with an argument that doesn't hinge entirely around the point that the new description didn't mention oranges. Because when that argument keeps getting made, it doesn't make their case.
This is not even remotely related to asking someone to chase down an example of another rule that started off requiring a time cost and a monetary cost and is superseded by a Feature that only mentions a time cost. First of all, it doesn't matter if there are other examples of this in the rules or not. That's not how RAW works. But also, it is already extremely rare that we even have an initial rule that discusses both a time cost and a monetary cost -- in fact, the Rule that we are discussing might be the only one in the game. So, knowing this, to ask someone to go find another example that exactly matches up with what is happening in this discussion is just basic nonsense.
It's unreasonable to say that the experiments take just as long as they did before applying the quill. That's just an assumption. The quill doesn't actually say it speeds up the writing process, either, but you just assume that it does because you have to use it for the transcription. The feature doesn't actually say the way in which it cuts this time, it just says that it cuts it (provided you use the quill for the transcription).
As I've proven, the assumption that spending less time on conducting experiments automatically means spending less money on experiments is based on logic that is invalidated once the feature is applied. There's no reason to believe that spending more time on experiments means spending more money on them.
No, it's unreasonable to NOT assume this. The quill explicitly performs the transcription, not the experimentation. If any of this experimentation is still required, it is still performed by the Wizard just like before. Also, the writing process MUST have been sped up since the entire process now takes 2 minutes. 2 minutes is less than 1 hour.
As for point 2, you've proven no such thing. The time cost and the monetary cost are linked. If the time is reduced, so is the cost. The whole point of spending money on the material components is to perform experiments. If there are less experiments then less materials need to be purchased. This is already established by the fact that higher level spells cost more time and more money simultaneously.
Just because it's performed by the Wizard doesn't mean it isn't somehow augmented by the feature. If you take the statement "the writing process MUST have been sped up since the entire process now takes 2 minutes. 2 minutes is less than 1 hour," and replace "writing process" with "experimentation process," you realize that it rings just as true.
How do you know that less time automatically means fewer experiments? Why isn't it a possibility that it just means quicker and easier experiments? The fact that higher level spells cost more time and more money simultaneously shows correlation, not causation. 5G does not cause Covid.
I've never seen the notation that you're using before. What exactly does the comma mean in l=(60m,40g)?
This represents the expenditure needed to scribe a spell of a certain level. The expenditure consists of two different categories (time cost and monetary cost) which are linked together and analyzed as a single entity. The notation I've invented here is similar to what you might see for sets or ordered pairs, but is unlikely to be an official mathematical notation since I am not a professional mathematician by trade. Debating whether or not someone uses exactly precise mathematical notation while discussing general concepts ongoing throughout the conversation is off-topic. Start another thread if you wish to discuss mathematical notation.
The mathematical notation you use matters when it gives you the wrong result. There's no mathematical representation for two variables being fundamentally and consistently "linked together" despite being linked only by a 3rd variable, because it doesn't make any sense. If you want to express this, you'd say l=60m and l=40g, because that's all we're told. You could make the equation 60m=40g, but it would become false as soon as the equation l=60m becomes false and l=m becomes true. This is pretty basic algebra, you don't have to be a professional mathematician to apply it correctly.
The ration of time to cost is not a rule, it's a structure based on existing rules, so it's faulty logic to apply it once its underlying rules are changed.
Incorrect. The relationship is established in the existing rules and that portion of the rules are unaffected by the change created by the Feature under my interpretation and also under your interpretation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp
Whether or not the feature replaces only the underlined part or the entire bolded part, the italicized portion of the Rule is NOT altered.
The italicized part doesn't change, but the italicized part doesn't say anything about the ratio of time to cost.
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)
Just because it's performed by the Wizard doesn't mean it isn't somehow augmented by the feature. If you take the statement "the writing process MUST have been sped up since the entire process now takes 2 minutes. 2 minutes is less than 1 hour," and replace "writing process" with "experimentation process," you realize that it rings just as true.
How do you know that less time automatically means fewer experiments? Why isn't it a possibility that it just means quicker and easier experiments? The fact that higher level spells cost more time and more money simultaneously shows correlation, not causation.
The Feature doesn't say anything like this though. It says that you must spend 2 minutes per spell level for the total process when you allow the quill to execute the transcription portion of the process. So, if there is still any deciphering / experimentation involved, the execution of that portion of the process hasn't changed. In addition, the difference is that the writing process involves the same amount of pages being written so the actual writing must speed up. This is not true of experimentation. The experimentation does not have to speed up -- there can just be less of it.
Less time means fewer experiments -- or, more precisely, less materials consumed during experimentation -- because nothing about the execution of experiments has changed. You still have to do them. Plus, the relationship between the amount of materials purchased and the time spent is already established.
The mathematical notation you use matters when it gives you the wrong result. There's no mathematical representation for two variables being fundamentally and consistently "linked together" despite being linked only by a 3rd variable, because it doesn't make any sense. If you want to express this, you'd say l=60m and l=40g, because that's all we're told. You could make the equation 60m=40g, but it would become false as soon as the equation l=60m becomes false and l=m becomes true. This is pretty basic algebra, you don't have to be a professional mathematician to apply it correctly.
In fact, there is such a mathematical representation. We shouldn't spend too much more time talking about mathematical notation in this thread but the general concept that I was thinking of is more akin to the concept of "functions", I just didn't write it with accurate notation because this part of the discussion is just sort of whatever. Multivariable functions I guess usually look something more like f(x,y). Concepts similar to this are also used in multivariable calculus with calculations such as double and triple integrals and so on. The point is that both variables adjust together according to the specifics of the same function. As the levels increase, both the time cost and the monetary cost increase together at specific rates. This is one reason why I've been using the term "expenditure" in place of "time cost and monetary cost" because at least then we're talking about one variable which is often less confusing.
Your conclusion above is incorrect because the relationship between the two types of costs is preestablished and is not changed by the Feature. The phrase "for each level of the spell" hasn't changed. So as the spell levels double and triple so do both the time cost and the monetary cost. If all of a sudden there is a lot less time then there should be a lot less cost since the cost represents the materials that are used in experiments that take time to execute.
The italicized part doesn't change, but the italicized part doesn't say anything about the ratio of time to cost.
The ratio of time to cost is already established by the general rule. For every hour of experimentation, 40 gp worth of material components is consumed. The experimentation process remains the same when using the Feature, in which only the transcription portion of the process is executed in a different manner. Therefore, the time to cost ratio itself is not superseded even if the ratio of each of these with the spell level has been changed.
All of your arguments seem to have boiled down to the same argument. Explain to me one simple thing: why the hell are you so goddamn sure that more time automatically equals more cost? It doesn't matter if I burn 40 gp worth of incense in a brazier within the span of 2 minutes or if I spread it out over 2 hours, I'm burning 40 gp worth of incense either way.
After applying the feature, the relevant rule in its entirety effectively reads like this:
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 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
Now, explain to me how you come to the conclusion that one hour of experimentation always, without a doubt, and with disregard to all situations costs 40 gp. And don't use the remnants of rules that are no longer applicable to do it, because those rules don't apply to the current situation, on account of being overruled by a more specific 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)
The mathematical notation you use matters when it gives you the wrong result. There's no mathematical representation for two variables being fundamentally and consistently "linked together" despite being linked only by a 3rd variable, because it doesn't make any sense. If you want to express this, you'd say l=60m and l=40g, because that's all we're told. You could make the equation 60m=40g, but it would become false as soon as the equation l=60m becomes false and l=m becomes true. This is pretty basic algebra, you don't have to be a professional mathematician to apply it correctly.
In fact, there is such a mathematical representation. We shouldn't spend too much more time talking about mathematical notation in this thread but the general concept that I was thinking of is more akin to the concept of "functions", I just didn't write it with accurate notation because this part of the discussion is just sort of whatever. Multivariable functions I guess usually look something more like f(x,y). Concepts similar to this are also used in multivariable calculus with calculations such as double and triple integrals and so on. The point is that both variables adjust together according to the specifics of the same function. As the levels increase, both the time cost and the monetary cost increase together at specific rates. This is one reason why I've been using the term "expenditure" in place of "time cost and monetary cost" because at least then we're talking about one variable which is often less confusing.
This isn't how multivariable functions work. In the example function you provided, x and y are both inputs, whereas we're talking about a single input with two different outputs. A single input with two different outputs is represented by two different equations. Y'know, the two different equations that I've but forward multiple times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The word for this is 'Parametric'. Both gold cost and time spent are determined by the spell level parameter.
Fun fact: A writer spends much more time writing and revising their novel until it is published than they do copying their novel after it is published.
Bonus fun fact: in order to write you need something to write on.
If only Order of Scribes also had another feature that specified that using the Wizardly Quill affected both time and cost of transcription... oh wait
Master Scrivener
10th-level Order of Scribes feature
You are also adept at crafting spell scrolls, which are described in the treasure chapter of the Dungeon Master’s Guide. The gold and time you must spend to make such a scroll are halved if you use your Wizardly Quill.
The Wizardly Quill reducing time but not cost of copying spells into your spellbook is very clearly both RAW and RAI. The arguments to the contrary have been... unpersuasive, but then, I doubt they were intended to be
You nailed it. That to me is another indication that when using the quill the cost spent is the same in general unless noted otherwise, such as Master Scrivener.
If only Order of Scribes also had another feature that specified that using the Wizardly Quill affected both time and cost of transcription... oh wait
Master Scrivener
10th-level Order of Scribes feature
You are also adept at crafting spell scrolls, which are described in the treasure chapter of the Dungeon Master’s Guide. The gold and time you must spend to make such a scroll are halved if you use your Wizardly Quill.
The Wizardly Quill reducing time but not cost of copying spells into your spellbook is very clearly both RAW and RAI. The arguments to the contrary have been... unpersuasive, but then, I doubt they were intended to be
You nailed it. That to me is another indication that when using the quill the cost spent is the same in general unless noted otherwise, such as Master Scrivener.
Incorrect. It is not possible to specify that the cost of something is halved without actually saying so -- therefore, in that case it MUST be specified explicitly. On the other hand, it IS possible to specify that there is nonzero of one thing and zero of another thing without ever referring to that second thing. Using examples of features where something is halved in not adequate "indication" whatsoever.
The word for this is 'Parametric'. Both gold cost and time spent are determined by the spell level parameter.
I'm not sure if the fun facts were meant to be anything other than fun in the context of this discussion, but I do appreciate the math lesson. It looks like that concept is a reasonable fit to describe the relationships in this portion of the Rule. I will defer to your guys on the technicalities of proper mathematical notation but we really are drifting wildly off-topic now.
All of your arguments seem to have boiled down to the same argument. Explain to me one simple thing: why the hell are you so goddamn sure that more time automatically equals more cost? It doesn't matter if I burn 40 gp worth of incense in a brazier within the span of 2 minutes or if I spread it out over 2 hours, I'm burning 40 gp worth of incense either way.
This relationship is firmly established by the general rule which specifies how the time and cost increase together in the same way. 1 hour of experimentation requires 40 gp, 2 hours of experimentation requires 80 gp, 3 hours of experimentation requires 120 gp and so on. Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required. These materials are used to perform the experiments which require the time to complete as specified by the general rule. You can graph the table of values and they would both start at 0 and they would both increase linearly up to Level 9. In this case, it's not a continuous curve, it is discreet because we do not have fractional Levels. But the linear relationship is clear.
Now, explain to me how you come to the conclusion that one hour of experimentation always, without a doubt, and with disregard to all situations costs 40 gp. And don't use the remnants of rules that are no longer applicable to do it, because those rules don't apply to the current situation, on account of being overruled by a more specific feature.
The reason why the same relationship continues to hold is because the Feature does not alter anything about the way in which any required deciphering / experimentation might be executed. The total time is altered and the transcription process has changed, but any required experiments are still performed by the Wizard in the same way that they were before. If instead the Feature had explicitly mentioned something like, for example, a whole bunch of lab assistants are magically conjured to perform all experimentation simultaneously, then we could easily understand how you can use up more materials in less time during experimentation. But the Feature doesn't do anything like that. You use the quill to complete the transcription instead of doing it the old way, and you are responsible to complete the total task in 2 minutes. Those are the new requirements. That is the new expenditure. Any costs that there might be for ink still follow the same relationship that it depends on how much ink is used, and any costs that there might be for material components still follow the same relationship for how much time the Wizard spends performing those experiments.
This is why your "axioms" for your earlier equations were flawed. The assumptions were not valid because they were working off of incomplete information. The available information that is used to establish the relationship between the time spent on experiments and the material cost used for those experiments is:
1. For each level of the spell, the process takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp.
2. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it
You cannot use only the information from point #1 to create your equations. The implication from the information in Point #2 is that a certain amount of experimentation has a certain cost. Since the Feature does not change the process of experimentation, then the same amount of experimentation will continue to have the same cost. So, if the time spent actually doing such experiments is reduced by changing something about point #1 or by making a change to the Rule similar to what you've posted in your Post #295, the relationship between the time spent and the money spent must remain the same. That is why the change you've proposed in Post #295 creates a paradox where the new Rule conflicts with itself. It is a better interpretation to simply replace the entire expenditure clause.
This relationship is firmly established by the general rule which specifies how the time and cost increase together in the same way.
You have a very strange idea of the word "firmly." Normally, when I use that word, I'd be referring to something that's very explicitly stated by the text.
Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required.
That's an assumption that isn't supported by the text. You're assuming that you spend material components, do an hour of research, spend some more, do another hour of research, and then repeat until you've done enough research. Meanwhile, I'm assuming nothing, because the rules do what they say they do, and because one doesn't have to do even a miniscule fraction of all the assumptions that you make regularly in order to understand the rules correctly.
The reason why the same relationship continues to hold is because the Feature does not alter anything about the way in which any required deciphering / experimentation might be executed. The total time is altered and the transcription process has changed, but any required experiments are still performed by the Wizard in the same way that they were before. If instead the Feature had explicitly mentioned something like, for example, a whole bunch of lab assistants are magically conjured to perform all experimentation simultaneously, then we could easily understand how you can use up more materials in less time during experimentation. But the Feature doesn't do anything like that.
So this all boils down to magic not making sense to you? Of course it doesn't make sense. It's magic. If the feature said that it conjured a bunch of ethereal lab assistants for the process of transcription, all that would do is change the flavor, not the mechanics. Why is it that you need this change to flavor to interpret the text as it is? Why is "the magic quill speeds the whole process up" not enough, but "the magic lab assistants speed the whole process up" is just fine?
This is why your "axioms" for your earlier equations were flawed. The assumptions were not valid because they were working off of incomplete information. The available information that is used to establish the relationship between the time spent on experiments and the material cost used for those experiments is:
1. For each level of the spell, the process takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp.
2. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it
You cannot use only the information from point #1 to create your equations. The implication from the information in Point #2 is that a certain amount of experimentation has a certain cost.
Hate to break it to you, but if your entire argument rests on the "implication" of a rule, then you aren't arguing for RAW. The thing about implications like this is that they can be seen completely differently by different people. For example, I didn't get that implication from that line of text at all. For this reason, implications and vibes and suggestions and whatever else you use to find your argument in rules where your argument doesn't exist aren't worth anything in a RAW argument.
If it's an implication, that means it isn't written. Do you know what the W in RAW stands for?
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)
It is not possible to specify that the cost of something is halved without actually saying so -- therefore, in that case it MUST be specified explicitly. On the other hand, it IS possible to specify that there is nonzero of one thing and zero of another thing without ever referring to that second thing. Using examples of features where something is halved in not adequate "indication" whatsoever.
Since I'm sick and cranky, I will indulge myself a little more. You're welcome
This is total bafflegab, especially in a rules context. Not mentioning something in a feature that alters/augments existing rules doesn't indicate that the rest of the rule disappears, it indicates the rest of the rule remains unaltered beyond what is specified
From the Awakened Spellbook feature:
While you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits:
When you cast a wizard spell as a ritual, you can use the spell’s normal casting time, rather than adding 10 minutes to it. Once you use this benefit, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest.
By your illogic, such rituals would no longer have a material component cost, because the material component cost isn't referenced. Free identify if you don't have a pearl handy, sweet. Free drawmij's instant summons? Even sweeter
Let's keep going:
When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell’s formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.
Wow, now none of your spells have a material component cost, provided you change its damage type. Amazing! No more 200 gp worth of incense and diamond dust for glyph of warding. Who needs a 500 gp black pearl for circle of death, when you can just change its damage type instead?
I'll now wait for you to gishgallop your way through an explanation of why using the rules to demonstrate how your rules interpretation falls apart is illegitimate, but a nonsense analogy to baskets of fruit is suuuuper-helpful
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)
Incorrect. It is not possible to specify that the cost of something is halved without actually saying so -- therefore, in that case it MUST be specified explicitly. On the other hand, it IS possible to specify that there is nonzero of one thing and zero of another thing without ever referring to that second thing. Using examples of features where something is halved in not adequate "indication" whatsoever.
If a feature doesn't say the cost spent is halved, then it isn't and the general rule for cost apply, just like if a feature makes no mention modyfing cost spent then there isn't and the general rule for cost apply. This is how Specific VS General works "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
Here the specific rule Wizardly Quill doesn't contradict the general for cost spent when Copying a Spell in Your Spellbook. But it does for time spent.
This is total bafflegab, especially in a rules context. Not mentioning something in a feature that alters/augments existing rules doesn't indicate that the rest of the rule disappears, it indicates the rest of the rule remains unaltered beyond what is specified
No, this simply is not true as has been demonstrated many many times now.
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
There are plenty of reasons to argue WHY you think that the new rule does not supersede the old rule in this way, but saying that the reason why is because and only because the word "oranges" was not used is insufficient since the statement itself is a valid way to express the meaning which includes 0 oranges. This argument simply is not good enough. You would need an additional reason in order to make a convincing argument.
While you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits:
When you cast a wizard spell as a ritual, you can use the spell’s normal casting time, rather than adding 10 minutes to it. Once you use this benefit, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest.
By your illogic, such rituals would no longer have a material component cost, because the material component cost isn't referenced. Free identify if you don't have a pearl handy, sweet. Free drawmij's instant summons? Even sweeter
What? This example makes no sense at all. This Feature references the casting time of casting a spell. You can use a new casting time, rather than some old casting time. This explicitly modifies the casting time of a spell. There is no valid way to interpret this statement such that it alters the Material Components required to cast the spell.
When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell’s formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.
Wow, now none of your spells have a material component cost, provided you change its damage type. Amazing! No more 200 gp worth of incense and diamond dust for glyph of warding. Who needs a 500 gp black pearl for circle of death, when you can just change its damage type instead?
No. None of these examples are meaningful at all. The general rule for the expenditure of scribing a spell already establishes a relationship between the time cost and the monetary cost. When one increases, the other also increases and the way in which they both increase is explicitly defined.
Your examples are all talking about separate rules that do not have any relationship with each other. At best, you could categorize these as "rules for casting spells". But we already know from explicit text all throughout the source books that there is no relationship between the casting time for a spell and the material components used. You might have a fast casting time with expensive material components or a slow casting time with no material components at all and every possible combination in-between. The same is true for the lack of relationship between spell slot usage and material components used when casting a spell. This is a fundamentally different situation than what we are discussing with respect to the expenditure of scribing a spell.
You have a very strange idea of the word "firmly." Normally, when I use that word, I'd be referring to something that's very explicitly stated by the text.
Ok, so we're going to quibble over the usage of the word "firmly" now during the explanation of a concept? I hereby retract the word "firmly". It makes no difference at all.
Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required.
That's an assumption that isn't supported by the text. You're assuming that you spend material components, do an hour of research, spend some more, do another hour of research, and then repeat until you've done enough research. Meanwhile, I'm assuming nothing, because the rules do what they say they do, and because one doesn't have to do even a miniscule fraction of all the assumptions that you make regularly in order to understand the rules correctly.
What? How are you even arguing here? Of all of the things to argue about it's strange to pick this -- it's established fact at this point. I really hope that I don't have to create a data table and a graph that shows how the cost goes up as the time increases according to the general rule, that would be pretty baffling.
So this all boils down to magic not making sense to you? Of course it doesn't make sense. It's magic. If the feature said that it conjured a bunch of ethereal lab assistants for the process of transcription, all that would do is change the flavor, not the mechanics. Why is it that you need this change to flavor to interpret the text as it is? Why is "the magic quill speeds the whole process up" not enough, but "the magic lab assistants speed the whole process up" is just fine?
The answer to the last question is that the Feature describes the quill as participating in the transcription half of the process. The Feature also speeds the whole process up. Nothing about either of those addresses the fact that the process for experimentation has not changed. The most obvious way that this is possible is if the quill transcribes spells without the need for them to be deciphered.
Yes, magic is magic. But that doesn't mean that we should be creating a rule that directly conflicts with itself and then not resolve it. Like, I can't use officially published spells to create an area that is filled with light and also fill that same area with total darkness at the same time. Even if we created a spell that says it could do this, that wouldn't make sense -- it would directly conflict with itself. In this context "doesn't make sense" is not meant to mean that it's confusing. It's meant in the context of that's just not a thing.
Hate to break it to you, but if your entire argument rests on the "implication" of a rule, then you aren't arguing for RAW. The thing about implications like this is that they can be seen completely differently by different people. For example, I didn't get that implication from that line of text at all. For this reason, implications and vibes and suggestions and whatever else you use to find your argument in rules where your argument doesn't exist aren't worth anything in a RAW argument.
If it's an implication, that means it isn't written. Do you know what the W in RAW stands for?
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
Hopefully we're not also seriously bickering about my usage of the word "implication" as well. I'm sure that I could rephrase that statement if it's confusing to you.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
I'll now wait for you to gishgallop your way through an explanation of why using the rules to demonstrate how your rules interpretation falls apart is illegitimate, but a nonsense analogy to baskets of fruit is suuuuper-helpful
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
Nailed it
Look, I can make irrelevant analogies too! If you walk into a tailor shop with a sign posted saying, "Alterations: two hours, 50 gp", but when you enter the nice tailor says, "Oh, I can actually do those alterations for you right away. Give me two minutes", do you expect it to be free because they didn't also mention the cost?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You have a very strange idea of the word "firmly." Normally, when I use that word, I'd be referring to something that's very explicitly stated by the text.
Ok, so we're going to quibble over the usage of the word "firmly" now during the explanation of a concept? I hereby retract the word "firmly". It makes no difference at all.
It makes no difference whether or not the things you're saying are explicitly supported by the text? I dunno about that one.
Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required.
That's an assumption that isn't supported by the text. You're assuming that you spend material components, do an hour of research, spend some more, do another hour of research, and then repeat until you've done enough research. Meanwhile, I'm assuming nothing, because the rules do what they say they do, and because one doesn't have to do even a miniscule fraction of all the assumptions that you make regularly in order to understand the rules correctly.
What? How are you even arguing here? Of all of the things to argue about it's strange to pick this -- it's established fact at this point. I really hope that I don't have to create a data table and a graph that shows how the cost goes up as the time increases according to the general rule, that would be pretty baffling.
The interesting thing is that the "data table and graph" that magically proves your point would work just as well for the ink time and costs, and yet you seem perfectly okay with accepting the idea that ink cost and time aren't proportional by the exact same amount at all times. Why is this? Maybe because there are assumptions that you're making specifically about material components that don't actually have a basis within the text. Just a thought.
So this all boils down to magic not making sense to you? Of course it doesn't make sense. It's magic. If the feature said that it conjured a bunch of ethereal lab assistants for the process of transcription, all that would do is change the flavor, not the mechanics. Why is it that you need this change to flavor to interpret the text as it is? Why is "the magic quill speeds the whole process up" not enough, but "the magic lab assistants speed the whole process up" is just fine?
The answer to the last question is that the Feature describes the quill as participating in the transcription half of the process. The Feature also speeds the whole process up. Nothing about either of those addresses the fact that the process for experimentation has not changed. The most obvious way that this is possible is if the quill transcribes spells without the need for them to be deciphered.
The feature doesn't describe the quill speeding up the transcription any more than it describes speeding up the experimentation, you know. You just assume that it speeds up the transcription because it's "the most obvious way that this is possible," which is just an arbitrary assumption that you came up with that really isn't helpful in a RAW argument.
Hopefully we're not also seriously bickering about my usage of the word "implication" as well. I'm sure that I could rephrase that statement if it's confusing to you.
I'm not bickering about the use of the word "implication." In fact, I find the use of the word to be completely and entirely accurate. That's my whole point.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
It's not getting snippy about mathematical notation, it's saying that the math that supposedly proves your point doesn't exist. It's not getting snippy about vocabulary words, it's about acknowledging what RAW is while having an argument specifically about RAW. I'd love to discuss the topic, but sometimes you have to talk about why certain arguments are invalid in order to continue with the discussion.
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)
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
Oh, this actually explains a lot. I apologize for treating you like someone making silly arguments to prolong a thread for lulz
RAW stands for Rules As Written. It's shorthand for "the rules do what they say they do, no more and no less." It sticks to a strictly literal interpretation of the text of the rules. Basically, none of the arguments you have made in this thread are even close to a Rules As Written argument, because they all rely on inference and extrapolation. "If x gets reduced, y must also be reduced even though y isn't referenced in the rule because..." is, on its face, not a RAW argument because the rule in question does not invoke y at all
Your arguments could be attempts at establishing an RAI -- Rules As Intended -- but they fail on that front too, because we know (as was referenced on page 1 of this thread over a year ago) that the UA version of Order of Scribes explicitly listed that both time and cost of transcription were reduced by using the Wizardly Quill, and only one of those made it to final publication. RAI, the Quill reduces only time, not cost, otherwise it would still explicitly say it reduced the cost. In RAW, everything has to be explicit, because that's what the term means. If it's not Written, it's not RAW
That leaves you explaining why you would rule a certain way as a DM, in which case, knock yourself out, my dude. We just don't need 15 pages of you telling us why your homebrew ruling is the bestest
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)
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
The actual definition has been correctly told above me. I'm just going to add: Before going into debate on what the rules state, and especially when the term has been used numerous times here, please read up on what the definition actually is. To add to this: RAW - Rules As Written; describes what's written in the text of the books and nothing more RAI - Rules As Intended; describes what the designers' intent was (an example of this: Simulacrums aren't supposed to be able to gain HP in any way except as the spell describes, but the spell doesn't actually explicitly state that it can't regain via Second Wind; additionally, it isn't supposed to be able to regain ANY abilities that recharge on a rest, but the text focuses on spell slots) RAF - Rules As Fun; describes any rulings made at the table that aren't covered by the rules or go against the written rules, but the table prefers and agrees to use; a common example of this is when people decide to roll damage for each dart of Magic Missile instead of using a single damage roll to apply to all darts
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
There are plenty of reasons to argue WHY you think that the new rule does not supersede the old rule in this way, but saying that the reason why is because and only because the word "oranges" was not used is insufficient since the statement itself is a valid way to express the meaning which includes 0 oranges. This argument simply is not good enough. You would need an additional reason in order to make a convincing argument.
Once more.
You're making an assumption that the rules line is the full expenditure of the spell. However, as it's written, there's no evidence to state this as the case. When two rules conflict with each other, the more specific rule takes precedence; however, only the specified portions are altered. In your analogy, as I expressed before, the sign isn't changed. It simply gets a 2 tacked over the top of the 10 for the apple cost.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
You're calling yourself out here.
Ultimately, the Rules As Written definition doesn't replace the cost. There's nothing stating it does, whereas other subclasses' reduction features do, as does Master Scrivener later. By your own logic, the other subclasses' features to reduce the time wouldn't need to write that they reduce the cost, yet they do. Further evidence that this isn't intended by the design team, both that this ability isn't written consistently with the others and the UA version had a reduction which was removed in the final product.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Touche. I've changed my mind since then. My main argument at that time is that the DM has to make a Ruling since only changing the total time required creates a paradox where the new rule ends up conflicting with itself. Keep in mind that this comment posted above was in response to the concept that the Feature would replace the entirety of the text within the My Spellbook Sidebar of the Wizard class description, which is indeed not how specific vs general works.
But since then I've realized that the text within the Feature can very well stand in as a replacement for the clause which describes the expenditure per level. Because the new expenditure conflicts with the old expenditure, that clause is superseded. As much as people don't want it to be, this is a valid interpretation of the Feature and a valid usage of specific vs general and it results in a much cleaner solution that does not rely on having to make a DM Ruling to explain something that should have never existed within the Rule in the first place.
Then why are you demanding other people do it, other than to provoke a response?
These are very common tactics, you know
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've done no such thing.
You told other people what kind of argument you might deign to find acceptable, and dismissed anything that didn't meet your standards as not "legitimate"
Of course, had someone actually jumped through your hoop and produced such an argument, there's little reason to believe you wouldn't have simply held up another hoop
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)
Oh. No, this is totally different.
I had just spent probably about a dozen posts trying to explain to people the concept that it's possible to write a statement that describes the contents of a basket full of apples and oranges that includes just apples, and when that happens the default value for the number of oranges is 0. And sure enough, someone will chime in with some variation of "well, the basket didn't say anything about oranges so there are still oranges in there". This conclusion is simply incorrect.
So, the statement that I was making was that since that conclusion is incorrect, it would be better to come up with an argument that doesn't hinge entirely around the point that the new description didn't mention oranges. Because when that argument keeps getting made, it doesn't make their case.
This is not even remotely related to asking someone to chase down an example of another rule that started off requiring a time cost and a monetary cost and is superseded by a Feature that only mentions a time cost. First of all, it doesn't matter if there are other examples of this in the rules or not. That's not how RAW works. But also, it is already extremely rare that we even have an initial rule that discusses both a time cost and a monetary cost -- in fact, the Rule that we are discussing might be the only one in the game. So, knowing this, to ask someone to go find another example that exactly matches up with what is happening in this discussion is just basic nonsense.
Just because it's performed by the Wizard doesn't mean it isn't somehow augmented by the feature. If you take the statement "the writing process MUST have been sped up since the entire process now takes 2 minutes. 2 minutes is less than 1 hour," and replace "writing process" with "experimentation process," you realize that it rings just as true.
How do you know that less time automatically means fewer experiments? Why isn't it a possibility that it just means quicker and easier experiments? The fact that higher level spells cost more time and more money simultaneously shows correlation, not causation. 5G does not cause Covid.
The mathematical notation you use matters when it gives you the wrong result. There's no mathematical representation for two variables being fundamentally and consistently "linked together" despite being linked only by a 3rd variable, because it doesn't make any sense. If you want to express this, you'd say l=60m and l=40g, because that's all we're told. You could make the equation 60m=40g, but it would become false as soon as the equation l=60m becomes false and l=m becomes true. This is pretty basic algebra, you don't have to be a professional mathematician to apply it correctly.
The italicized part doesn't change, but the italicized part doesn't say anything about the ratio of time to cost.
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 Feature doesn't say anything like this though. It says that you must spend 2 minutes per spell level for the total process when you allow the quill to execute the transcription portion of the process. So, if there is still any deciphering / experimentation involved, the execution of that portion of the process hasn't changed. In addition, the difference is that the writing process involves the same amount of pages being written so the actual writing must speed up. This is not true of experimentation. The experimentation does not have to speed up -- there can just be less of it.
Less time means fewer experiments -- or, more precisely, less materials consumed during experimentation -- because nothing about the execution of experiments has changed. You still have to do them. Plus, the relationship between the amount of materials purchased and the time spent is already established.
In fact, there is such a mathematical representation. We shouldn't spend too much more time talking about mathematical notation in this thread but the general concept that I was thinking of is more akin to the concept of "functions", I just didn't write it with accurate notation because this part of the discussion is just sort of whatever. Multivariable functions I guess usually look something more like f(x,y). Concepts similar to this are also used in multivariable calculus with calculations such as double and triple integrals and so on. The point is that both variables adjust together according to the specifics of the same function. As the levels increase, both the time cost and the monetary cost increase together at specific rates. This is one reason why I've been using the term "expenditure" in place of "time cost and monetary cost" because at least then we're talking about one variable which is often less confusing.
Your conclusion above is incorrect because the relationship between the two types of costs is preestablished and is not changed by the Feature. The phrase "for each level of the spell" hasn't changed. So as the spell levels double and triple so do both the time cost and the monetary cost. If all of a sudden there is a lot less time then there should be a lot less cost since the cost represents the materials that are used in experiments that take time to execute.
The ratio of time to cost is already established by the general rule. For every hour of experimentation, 40 gp worth of material components is consumed. The experimentation process remains the same when using the Feature, in which only the transcription portion of the process is executed in a different manner. Therefore, the time to cost ratio itself is not superseded even if the ratio of each of these with the spell level has been changed.
All of your arguments seem to have boiled down to the same argument. Explain to me one simple thing: why the hell are you so goddamn sure that more time automatically equals more cost? It doesn't matter if I burn 40 gp worth of incense in a brazier within the span of 2 minutes or if I spread it out over 2 hours, I'm burning 40 gp worth of incense either way.
After applying the feature, the relevant rule in its entirety effectively reads like this:
Now, explain to me how you come to the conclusion that one hour of experimentation always, without a doubt, and with disregard to all situations costs 40 gp. And don't use the remnants of rules that are no longer applicable to do it, because those rules don't apply to the current situation, on account of being overruled by a more specific 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)
This isn't how multivariable functions work. In the example function you provided, x and y are both inputs, whereas we're talking about a single input with two different outputs. A single input with two different outputs is represented by two different equations. Y'know, the two different equations that I've but forward multiple times.
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 word for this is 'Parametric'. Both gold cost and time spent are determined by the spell level parameter.
Fun fact: A writer spends much more time writing and revising their novel until it is published than they do copying their novel after it is published.
Bonus fun fact: in order to write you need something to write on.
You nailed it. That to me is another indication that when using the quill the cost spent is the same in general unless noted otherwise, such as Master Scrivener.
Incorrect. It is not possible to specify that the cost of something is halved without actually saying so -- therefore, in that case it MUST be specified explicitly. On the other hand, it IS possible to specify that there is nonzero of one thing and zero of another thing without ever referring to that second thing. Using examples of features where something is halved in not adequate "indication" whatsoever.
I'm not sure if the fun facts were meant to be anything other than fun in the context of this discussion, but I do appreciate the math lesson. It looks like that concept is a reasonable fit to describe the relationships in this portion of the Rule. I will defer to your guys on the technicalities of proper mathematical notation but we really are drifting wildly off-topic now.
This relationship is firmly established by the general rule which specifies how the time and cost increase together in the same way. 1 hour of experimentation requires 40 gp, 2 hours of experimentation requires 80 gp, 3 hours of experimentation requires 120 gp and so on. Even if you burned up all 40 gp worth of materials in the first two minutes, the experiments still take 1 hour to complete. Otherwise, we wouldn't need another hour for second level spells and a third hour for third level spells and so on. You don't need the next 40 gp worth of materials until the 2nd hour of time is required. These materials are used to perform the experiments which require the time to complete as specified by the general rule. You can graph the table of values and they would both start at 0 and they would both increase linearly up to Level 9. In this case, it's not a continuous curve, it is discreet because we do not have fractional Levels. But the linear relationship is clear.
The reason why the same relationship continues to hold is because the Feature does not alter anything about the way in which any required deciphering / experimentation might be executed. The total time is altered and the transcription process has changed, but any required experiments are still performed by the Wizard in the same way that they were before. If instead the Feature had explicitly mentioned something like, for example, a whole bunch of lab assistants are magically conjured to perform all experimentation simultaneously, then we could easily understand how you can use up more materials in less time during experimentation. But the Feature doesn't do anything like that. You use the quill to complete the transcription instead of doing it the old way, and you are responsible to complete the total task in 2 minutes. Those are the new requirements. That is the new expenditure. Any costs that there might be for ink still follow the same relationship that it depends on how much ink is used, and any costs that there might be for material components still follow the same relationship for how much time the Wizard spends performing those experiments.
This is why your "axioms" for your earlier equations were flawed. The assumptions were not valid because they were working off of incomplete information. The available information that is used to establish the relationship between the time spent on experiments and the material cost used for those experiments is:
1. For each level of the spell, the process takes 1 hour and costs 40 gp.
2. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it
You cannot use only the information from point #1 to create your equations. The implication from the information in Point #2 is that a certain amount of experimentation has a certain cost. Since the Feature does not change the process of experimentation, then the same amount of experimentation will continue to have the same cost. So, if the time spent actually doing such experiments is reduced by changing something about point #1 or by making a change to the Rule similar to what you've posted in your Post #295, the relationship between the time spent and the money spent must remain the same. That is why the change you've proposed in Post #295 creates a paradox where the new Rule conflicts with itself. It is a better interpretation to simply replace the entire expenditure clause.
You have a very strange idea of the word "firmly." Normally, when I use that word, I'd be referring to something that's very explicitly stated by the text.
That's an assumption that isn't supported by the text. You're assuming that you spend material components, do an hour of research, spend some more, do another hour of research, and then repeat until you've done enough research. Meanwhile, I'm assuming nothing, because the rules do what they say they do, and because one doesn't have to do even a miniscule fraction of all the assumptions that you make regularly in order to understand the rules correctly.
So this all boils down to magic not making sense to you? Of course it doesn't make sense. It's magic. If the feature said that it conjured a bunch of ethereal lab assistants for the process of transcription, all that would do is change the flavor, not the mechanics. Why is it that you need this change to flavor to interpret the text as it is? Why is "the magic quill speeds the whole process up" not enough, but "the magic lab assistants speed the whole process up" is just fine?
Hate to break it to you, but if your entire argument rests on the "implication" of a rule, then you aren't arguing for RAW. The thing about implications like this is that they can be seen completely differently by different people. For example, I didn't get that implication from that line of text at all. For this reason, implications and vibes and suggestions and whatever else you use to find your argument in rules where your argument doesn't exist aren't worth anything in a RAW argument.
If it's an implication, that means it isn't written. Do you know what the W in RAW stands for?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Since I'm sick and cranky, I will indulge myself a little more. You're welcome
This is total bafflegab, especially in a rules context. Not mentioning something in a feature that alters/augments existing rules doesn't indicate that the rest of the rule disappears, it indicates the rest of the rule remains unaltered beyond what is specified
From the Awakened Spellbook feature:
By your illogic, such rituals would no longer have a material component cost, because the material component cost isn't referenced. Free identify if you don't have a pearl handy, sweet. Free drawmij's instant summons? Even sweeter
Let's keep going:
Wow, now none of your spells have a material component cost, provided you change its damage type. Amazing! No more 200 gp worth of incense and diamond dust for glyph of warding. Who needs a 500 gp black pearl for circle of death, when you can just change its damage type instead?
I'll now wait for you to gishgallop your way through an explanation of why using the rules to demonstrate how your rules interpretation falls apart is illegitimate, but a nonsense analogy to baskets of fruit is suuuuper-helpful
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If a feature doesn't say the cost spent is halved, then it isn't and the general rule for cost apply, just like if a feature makes no mention modyfing cost spent then there isn't and the general rule for cost apply. This is how Specific VS General works "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
Here the specific rule Wizardly Quill doesn't contradict the general for cost spent when Copying a Spell in Your Spellbook. But it does for time spent.
Basic Rules for Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
No, this simply is not true as has been demonstrated many many times now.
If I make a statement that says "The expenditure to complete the task is 10 apples and 5 oranges" and then that statement is changed to read "The expenditure to complete the task is 2 apples" then it would be a mistake to think that this "indicates" that the expenditure now includes 5 oranges.
There are plenty of reasons to argue WHY you think that the new rule does not supersede the old rule in this way, but saying that the reason why is because and only because the word "oranges" was not used is insufficient since the statement itself is a valid way to express the meaning which includes 0 oranges. This argument simply is not good enough. You would need an additional reason in order to make a convincing argument.
What? This example makes no sense at all. This Feature references the casting time of casting a spell. You can use a new casting time, rather than some old casting time. This explicitly modifies the casting time of a spell. There is no valid way to interpret this statement such that it alters the Material Components required to cast the spell.
No. None of these examples are meaningful at all. The general rule for the expenditure of scribing a spell already establishes a relationship between the time cost and the monetary cost. When one increases, the other also increases and the way in which they both increase is explicitly defined.
Your examples are all talking about separate rules that do not have any relationship with each other. At best, you could categorize these as "rules for casting spells". But we already know from explicit text all throughout the source books that there is no relationship between the casting time for a spell and the material components used. You might have a fast casting time with expensive material components or a slow casting time with no material components at all and every possible combination in-between. The same is true for the lack of relationship between spell slot usage and material components used when casting a spell. This is a fundamentally different situation than what we are discussing with respect to the expenditure of scribing a spell.
Ok, so we're going to quibble over the usage of the word "firmly" now during the explanation of a concept? I hereby retract the word "firmly". It makes no difference at all.
What? How are you even arguing here? Of all of the things to argue about it's strange to pick this -- it's established fact at this point. I really hope that I don't have to create a data table and a graph that shows how the cost goes up as the time increases according to the general rule, that would be pretty baffling.
The answer to the last question is that the Feature describes the quill as participating in the transcription half of the process. The Feature also speeds the whole process up. Nothing about either of those addresses the fact that the process for experimentation has not changed. The most obvious way that this is possible is if the quill transcribes spells without the need for them to be deciphered.
Yes, magic is magic. But that doesn't mean that we should be creating a rule that directly conflicts with itself and then not resolve it. Like, I can't use officially published spells to create an area that is filled with light and also fill that same area with total darkness at the same time. Even if we created a spell that says it could do this, that wouldn't make sense -- it would directly conflict with itself. In this context "doesn't make sense" is not meant to mean that it's confusing. It's meant in the context of that's just not a thing.
Actually no, I have no idea what RAW stands for. Is it like the opposite of cooked? What does the W mean exactly? Please enlighten me. In as many words as possible so that it is super clear. That would be very helpful.
Hopefully we're not also seriously bickering about my usage of the word "implication" as well. I'm sure that I could rephrase that statement if it's confusing to you.
Yes, I agree that apparently people can read the text and have different interpretations of it. Otherwise this forum wouldn't exist and this thread wouldn't have gone on for so long. It's also pretty clear that some people are incredibly stubborn about holding onto their interpretation no matter how abundantly clear it becomes that their interpretation is inferior to the point where they begin to get snippy about such things like mathematical notation and vocabulary words instead of just discussing the actual topic.
Nailed it
Look, I can make irrelevant analogies too! If you walk into a tailor shop with a sign posted saying, "Alterations: two hours, 50 gp", but when you enter the nice tailor says, "Oh, I can actually do those alterations for you right away. Give me two minutes", do you expect it to be free because they didn't also mention the cost?
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)
It makes no difference whether or not the things you're saying are explicitly supported by the text? I dunno about that one.
The interesting thing is that the "data table and graph" that magically proves your point would work just as well for the ink time and costs, and yet you seem perfectly okay with accepting the idea that ink cost and time aren't proportional by the exact same amount at all times. Why is this? Maybe because there are assumptions that you're making specifically about material components that don't actually have a basis within the text. Just a thought.
The feature doesn't describe the quill speeding up the transcription any more than it describes speeding up the experimentation, you know. You just assume that it speeds up the transcription because it's "the most obvious way that this is possible," which is just an arbitrary assumption that you came up with that really isn't helpful in a RAW argument.
I'm not bickering about the use of the word "implication." In fact, I find the use of the word to be completely and entirely accurate. That's my whole point.
It's not getting snippy about mathematical notation, it's saying that the math that supposedly proves your point doesn't exist. It's not getting snippy about vocabulary words, it's about acknowledging what RAW is while having an argument specifically about RAW. I'd love to discuss the topic, but sometimes you have to talk about why certain arguments are invalid in order to continue with the discussion.
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)
Oh, this actually explains a lot. I apologize for treating you like someone making silly arguments to prolong a thread for lulz
RAW stands for Rules As Written. It's shorthand for "the rules do what they say they do, no more and no less." It sticks to a strictly literal interpretation of the text of the rules. Basically, none of the arguments you have made in this thread are even close to a Rules As Written argument, because they all rely on inference and extrapolation. "If x gets reduced, y must also be reduced even though y isn't referenced in the rule because..." is, on its face, not a RAW argument because the rule in question does not invoke y at all
Your arguments could be attempts at establishing an RAI -- Rules As Intended -- but they fail on that front too, because we know (as was referenced on page 1 of this thread over a year ago) that the UA version of Order of Scribes explicitly listed that both time and cost of transcription were reduced by using the Wizardly Quill, and only one of those made it to final publication. RAI, the Quill reduces only time, not cost, otherwise it would still explicitly say it reduced the cost. In RAW, everything has to be explicit, because that's what the term means. If it's not Written, it's not RAW
That leaves you explaining why you would rule a certain way as a DM, in which case, knock yourself out, my dude. We just don't need 15 pages of you telling us why your homebrew ruling is the bestest
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)
The actual definition has been correctly told above me. I'm just going to add: Before going into debate on what the rules state, and especially when the term has been used numerous times here, please read up on what the definition actually is. To add to this:
RAW - Rules As Written; describes what's written in the text of the books and nothing more
RAI - Rules As Intended; describes what the designers' intent was (an example of this: Simulacrums aren't supposed to be able to gain HP in any way except as the spell describes, but the spell doesn't actually explicitly state that it can't regain via Second Wind; additionally, it isn't supposed to be able to regain ANY abilities that recharge on a rest, but the text focuses on spell slots)
RAF - Rules As Fun; describes any rulings made at the table that aren't covered by the rules or go against the written rules, but the table prefers and agrees to use; a common example of this is when people decide to roll damage for each dart of Magic Missile instead of using a single damage roll to apply to all darts
Once more.
You're making an assumption that the rules line is the full expenditure of the spell. However, as it's written, there's no evidence to state this as the case. When two rules conflict with each other, the more specific rule takes precedence; however, only the specified portions are altered. In your analogy, as I expressed before, the sign isn't changed. It simply gets a 2 tacked over the top of the 10 for the apple cost.
You're calling yourself out here.
Ultimately, the Rules As Written definition doesn't replace the cost. There's nothing stating it does, whereas other subclasses' reduction features do, as does Master Scrivener later. By your own logic, the other subclasses' features to reduce the time wouldn't need to write that they reduce the cost, yet they do. Further evidence that this isn't intended by the design team, both that this ability isn't written consistently with the others and the UA version had a reduction which was removed in the final product.