Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Ya, disagree, but since I dont play at your table I doubt it will be an issue. Casting a spell through the spell casting feature uses a spell slot. Casting through an item, be a ring, scroll, staff, wand, rod, etc uses the item and/or charge. The card is the "charge" in this case. Now, if you feel you REALLY have to restrict it, again, go ahead and do so. I think its silly to limit it that way, but some folks are determined to not let us have nice things. Or ban it if you think its too busted, but again, silly in my mind to do so. The feature doesnt need to be nerfed to all hell. Its one extra slot and sure at sure high levels it can be a high level slot. Who cares? A LOT of the problems people have with the game arent the features, its simply comes down to not having enough encounters per day....ie moving away from what DnD is, to be instead something that would be better suited to say Vampire the Masq. where more interactions and less combat is the norm. DnD is about going into lairs, murdering the residents and looting. Then the drinking. So if you are not running a number of encounters, to wear down resources, then sure that extra slot or two might be unnecessary....but if you ARE wearing down resources, then overall, its not going to be a big deal, and it will allow for people to enjoy the heart of the game more. At least that is my view on it. Its why I think ALL martial resources need to be doubled if not tripled so they can keep doing their cool stuff and not regulated to once or twice a day....which right now is the problem, ESP at low levels but in some cases it is a problem through out the level progression becuase, for example Monk, the cost to use higher end features is very very expensive when it all comes from one resource pool.
The feat doesn't create a Magic Item so the Magic Item rules do not apply. If the card was casting the spell, you could hand it to someone else and have them cast it. You cannot because it is a feature of the Feat, not the item. If it created a Magic Item, it would tell you, which it does not.
Many problems in D&D are caused by misunderstandings of the rules and poor communications of expectations between others at the table. You can house rule Cartomancer how you like, but your claims are not RAW and you should understand what RAW is before making any changes. When you make house rules without an understanding of the rules there can be many unintended impacts.
The feature doesn't need to be buffed. It's a Bonus Action spell of your choice once a day and a cantrip. It's good as is. It doesn't need an abusive upgrade that scales as you gain access to higher spell slots.
Muderhobo is ... a style of play, but not the only one and not the more complex or taxing one.
When you are playing around attrition of resources is exactly when an extra spell slot is overpowered. If you aren't running out of spell slots, an extra one isn't making a difference.
In a game with a martial-caster divide that increases as you gain in levels, maybe if you weren't handing out, or asking for, caster buffs hand over fist, you wouldn't need martials buffed as much.
Your argument has no rules basis and is not consistent with other feats in the game.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Potent Dragonmark.....so there are feats that can give spell slots. Again, I disagree with your interpretation, but that's fine.
Potent Dragonmark is arguably unbalanced, particularly compared to 2014 feats. However, it causes your Dragonmark spells to be always prepared and gives you one spell slot to cast a restricted list of spells but does not change the casting time of the spell used to cast it. In addition, because it is an actual spell slot, you cannot cast another spell with a spell slot that turn.
You are saying that Cartomancer effectively gives you a free casting AND changes a 1 action spell to a bonus action AND allows you to break the limit of spells with a spell slot per turn because it is not actually a spell slot.
That is three big buffs that blow Potent Dragonmark out of the water. If the Feat worked the way you described, it would be an automatic pick for nearly every caster. You can't Fireball twice on a turn for one Feat.
Look at Metamagic Adept from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything since it's actually from the same 2014 ruleset. You can choose 2 Metamagic Options and have 2 Sorcery Points to use with them. You can choose Quickened Spell and another Metamagic option. Cartomancer is flavorful, but a little weaker than Metamagic Adept. If you allow Cartomancer to give you an extra spell and break the 1 spell with a spell slot per turn limit, Cartomancer destroys Metamagic Adept.
You can house rule how you want at your table, but it is a house rule. RAW is clear and doesn't allow those shenanigans.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
And look at that, it explicitly tells you that it does. It also only goes up to 5th level for balance reasons and limits the spells it applies to.
Not comparable.
"allows you to break the limit of spells with a spell slot..." No. You aren't casting a spell with a spell slot. Breaking it would be casting more than 1 spell with a spell slot. There are quite a few ways to cast multiple leveled spells in a turn and only using 1 spell slot. That doesn't break anything and is following the rules.
Also disagree about it being clear. Giving the disagreements across the community, I'd say it is quite not clear.
Cartomancer is full of shenanigans. Like being able to pick a spell of a level you cannot cast, but you have a spell slot for, depending on how you view it (either bound or not by the multiclassing spell rules).
You are casting with a spell slot because the Cartomancer feat allows you to cast a 1 Action spell as a Bonus Action. Nothing more. It does not allow you to get around the limit of spells you can cast by not using a spell slot. In 2014, the limit was actually that you could not cast more than one level 1+ spell per turn and this is a 2014 feat. The 2024 rules are a little looser.
I think the consensus is pretty clear, particularly with in the context of the 2024 rules that this post was reopened. There are a few false examples, like a Spellwrought Tattoo and Wands.
Casting a Spell always uses a spell slot ... unless it doesn't. However, when it doesn't there is a rule that explicitly says that it does not. The rules are clear, but they aren't neatly consolidated into a feat description that says that you change the casting time and reiterates that you still need to provide the spell slot, and the duration is the same, and the spell save/attack bonus is the same. Also remember that if the spell was being cast from an item (card), the card would need to explicitly state the Spell Attack Modifier and Spell Save DC or explicitly state that it uses your own. The feat does not do this because it follows the spell casting rules as normal, except for the cast time.
No, I think you are right on those shenanigans. You choose the spell on your list that you have spell slots for (I wonder why those are important?) and that specific rule bypasses the general prepared spell requirement for casting spells. Since you choose from the spell list, the multiclass rules on preparing spells wouldn't apply. Technically, you could combine it with one level in a spell casting class and the Potent Dragonmark feat to Bonus Action cast your spells of the mark even if your other levels not spellcasting levels, but that is probably not particularly special.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
ACTUALLY....Absolutely and 100% incorrect. In the 2014 rules the limit was not that you could not cast more than one level 1+ spell per turn. Your inaccuracy on that puts a serious doubt on any other interpretations that you have. The LIMIT in 2014 was that if you used your BONUS ACTION to cast a spell, then any other spells you cast that turn HAD to be a cantrip. THAT IS IT. Casting a Fireball, Action Surge Fireball is 100% perfectly legal in 2014. The limit on the number of leveled spells you could cast in a turn was based on your available actions that were not a Bonus Action and available spell slot.
Splitting hairs aside, the fact remains that there is no language in Cartomancer explicitly saying you may cast the selected spell without using a spell slot, and as it is a feat such language would be required based on the precedent of every other feat published in official materials. It was badly written, but if you actually attempt to parse the RAI from the lens of "what produces an effect consistent with comparable parts of the game" rather than "what gets the player the most advantage", it's not hard to infer the intended function.
Yes, this is correct. I am tired and may be rustier on the 2014 rules than I thought. However, the result of the statement is still the same. Where does Cartomancer say you can now cast anything other than a Cantrip? It does not because it does not say it does. When you cast a spell using Cartomancer, you will not be able to cast any other level 1+ spells that turn because you will be restricted to only casting Cantrips.
We are not talking about casting extra spells via Action Surge, we are talking about a spell being cast as a Bonus Action. Why is that important?
So now back to where does Cartomancer say it does not use a spell slot? It does not. It says you cast a spell and it follows all the rules on casting a spell except those a feature (in this case Cartomancer) explicitly changes, which is to change a 1 action spell into a Bonus Action spell. The requirement to use a spell slot still applies unless you choose to use it with a Cantrip.
Examples of other features that allow you to cast spells with or without spell slots.
I think you will find that in every official case where a spell can be "cast" without a spell slot, one of two things are happening: there is a rule explicitly saying that a spell slot is not used in that circumstance; or the effect is not casting a spell and the rule for the effect does not reference casting a spell (see an Artificer's Spell-storing Item).
Cartomancer only allows you to cast a spell as a Bonus Action. In certain scenarios, it also allows you to cast spells you could not otherwise prepare, but it is not clear if that was RAI (definitely RAW). You are still restricted by every other rule of spellcasting.
In the context of using this 2014 feat under the 2024 rules:
I feel that Book of Many Things was a gimmicky book and will be unlikely to be updated, but a potentially updated version of the feat might look like this if they change Hidden Ace:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Card Tricks. Unchanged.
Hidden Ace. When you finish a long rest, you can choose one spell from your class's spell list and imbue that spell into a card. The chosen spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and you must be eligible to prepare it. The card remains imbued with this spell until you finish a long rest. While the card is imbued with the spell, it counts as prepared and you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That isnt true. The 2024 rules is no more than 1 spell with a spell slot. No where is there a place saying you are using a spell slot to cast the spell...again, at least how I read it. But hey, I dont try to make things worst.
Nowhere does it say that it isn't using a spell slot. It does say you are casting a spell and thus must follow all of the rules of casting a spell, including using a spell slot. The feat only changes the rules on casting a spell that it explicitly says it changes.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
We've been told many times that 5e rules are written in natural language. So, when the feat explicitly says "The card then immediately loses its magic". Loses its magic is a common term used across more than a few magic items which have charges that do not replenish (and some that do, after centuries). Since the feature tells us the item loses its magic when the spell is cast, that means it was a magic item, and since it contains a spell, it falls under: "Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description says otherwise"
Unless it's explicitly stated to create a magic item, the feat isn't creating a magic item.
There are a few problems with that.
First, as mentioned by Athanar90, it never says it creates a Magic Item so it does not and the Magic Item rules do not apply; only the spellcasting rules. Additionally, I can't think of an effect that creates a non-predefined Magic Item that without assigning a Rarity. For example, Pennant of the Vind Rune says that you can transfer the magic to Armor that gives +5 speed and doesn't impose disadvantage on Stealth. That is not an existing Magic Item independent of the Pennant, so it tells you that it is now an Uncommon Magic Item that requires attunement.
Second, the feat actually says " ... you can choose one spell from your class's spell list and imbue that spell into a card. ... While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic." The magic it is losing is the imbuement of the spell. It is never a Magic Item.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If its imbued with magic its the same as a scroll, which is cast without a spell slot. Again, run it like you want. There is clearly room for interpretation. I prefer, in the absence of absolute language, to allow for the greatest flexibility and fun. Others want to restrict. So you do you....I will do the same.
No, it is not like a Scroll. A Scroll is a Magic Item. It is listed in the categories of Magic Items. It is explicitly listed as a Magic Item.
Magic Items have rarities and those rarities can sometimes be important for certain effects.
Cartomancer never says it creates a Magic Item. It never assigns a Magic Item Rarity. It never defines the Spell Save DC or Spell Attack Bonus. You are casting the spell and the card is just a gimmick for flavor. The only thing Hidden Ace does is change a 1 Action spell to a Bonus Action spell.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Just remember this only applies if you're the DM or your DM agrees, since not using a spell slot would be a house rule.
I think the interpretation of the Cartomancer feat is up to the DM and how they want to run it. The RAW does not seem to be cut and dried since the Cartomancer feat uses "imbue" which is not defined but does state that the card is a magic item since it loses its magic when the spell is cast.
However, the feat itself uses language that implies the card is a magic item - if that affects the interpretation of other rules. The text states that after the spell is cast "The card then immediately loses its magic." - which can be interpreted to mean that the card itself becomes a consumable magic item.
The problem is that the feat uses unique language to describe the loading of the spell into the card which is not defined elsewhere in the rules.
"you can choose one spell from your class’s spell list and imbue that spell into a card"
What does imbue mean? The text does NOT state CAST into the item which means that a spell slot likely does not need to be expended when the spell is placed in the card. Otherwise the text could have read that that use must "cast" the spell into the item as in a Ring of Spell Storing. However, a DM could decide that "imbue" does require the expenditure of a spell slot. Either interpretation is consistent with RAW since imbue is not defined.
The 2024 rules on magic items state:
"Spells Cast from Items
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn’t expend any of the user’s spell slots, and requires no components unless the item’s description notes otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires Concentration. Many items, such as Potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell’s effects with its usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.."
In general. a spell cast from a magic item does not require a spell slot and since the rules explicitly state that the card "immediately loses its magic" when the spell is cast - this is a pretty clear indication that the card IS a magic item since if it was not, then it would have no magic to lose.
Anyway, I think the interpretation that the card is not a magic item and that the feat requires a spell slot to be spent is not as obviously RAW as some folks seem to be presenting it in this thread. However, since "imbue" is not defined, a DM could choose to require a spell slot be spent even though the Cartomancer rules do not explicitly require the expenditure of a spell slot.
"Cartomancer
Prerequisite: 4th Level, Spellcasting Feature
You have learned to channel your magic through a deck of cards. You can use a card deck as your spellcasting focus, and you gain the following benefits:
Card Tricks. You learn the Prestidigitation cantrip and can use it to create illusions that duplicate the effects of stage magic. When you use Prestidigitation in this way, you can conceal the verbal and somatic components of the spell as ordinary conversation and card handling.
Hidden Ace. When you finish a long rest, you can choose one spell from your class’s spell list and imbue that spell into a card. The chosen spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and it must be a level for which you have spell slots. The card remains imbued with this spell for 8 hours. While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic."
Cartomancer states that "The card then immediately loses its magic." after the spell is expended. Only a consumable magic item can lose its magic. A non-magic item doesn't have any magic in the first place. Given that explicit statement in the feat, I think it is fairly clear that the card IS a magic item.
Also, not every magic item has a rarity. The artificer spell storing item allows a creature to cast a spell from it using the Magic action. Though the wording in this case has the creature "produce the spell's effect" rather than "cast" it. There is also no explicit reference to it being a magic item (though it does contain spells and requires a Magic action to use - perhaps implying that it is a magic item) while in the case of Cartomancer, the card does explicitly become non-magical when the spell is expended.
Another example of creating a magic item is the 2014 Devotion Paladin Sacred Weapon channel divinity that explicitly makes the weapon magical if it isn't already. This is another magic item without a rarity. Of course, 2024 rules removed this aspect since they removed the concept of magical vs non-magical damage and instead use damage types.
Various source books also contain magic items without explicit rarities - whether that was an oversight or whether the item was just considered unique would be up to the author but the fact that Cartomancer doesn't assign a rarity to a consumable magic item that is created as a part of the feat does not indicate that the card is not a magic item - especially if it explicitly loses its magic after use.