No, because a scroll is something anyone who can cast the spell can pick up and use at any point after it is made, whereas the card created by this feat is specific to the player and only exists for a limited time. Plus scrolls don’t use spell slots, which as has been noted would be broken here. You could say it’s a similar principle, but the card is a quick and dirty application.
No, because a scroll is something anyone who can cast the spell can pick up and use at any point after it is made, whereas the card created by this feat is specific to the player and only exists for a limited time. Plus scrolls don’t use spell slots, which as has been noted would be broken here. You could say it’s a similar principle, but the card is a quick and dirty application.
I'd like to point out that not requiring a spell slot for the feat is only "broken" at high levels.
Is an extra 9th level spell via the feat "broken" ... arguably yes since you could load a bonus action wish into it and cast any other spell of 8th level and below as a bonus action - which would be very powerful.
On the other hand, if the card was limited to 5th level spells and below (which it isn't RAW), I'm not sure anyone would argue it was "broken". It would be a decent feat effectively getting an extra pre-decided 5th level spell that could be cast as a bonus action. Definitely desirable but not game breakingly powerful.
Personally, I wish the feat was more clear as to whether a spell slot was required to imbue the card or not. Without including the spell slot, I'm not sure the ability to cast a designated spell as a bonus action is really worth a feat.
The feat allows you to imbue a non-magical item with a spell you may not even know, turning it into a consumable magical item. Without the aid of magical items, you cannot cast a spell you do not know. This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature. There are no spell slots used in the imbuing or use of the spell because you are not casting the spell, the magic item is. Similar to how infused items only use your action economy to use.
The feat allows you to imbue a non-magical item with a spell you may not even know, turning it into a consumable magical item. Without the aid of magical items, you cannot cast a spell you do not know. This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature. There are no spell slots used in the imbuing or use of the spell because you are not casting the spell, the magic item is. Similar to how infused items only use your action economy to use.
The language of Cartomancer is clearly distinct from a magic item that casts a spell. With the feat it says “you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within”, whereas for a Wand of Magic Detection it says “you can expend 1 charge as an action to cast the detect magic spell from [the wand]”. And a feat like Fey Touched that gives you a free cast specifically says that you cast the spell without using a spell slot. Thus Cartomancer clearly has the character casting the spell as opposed to the object and lacks any exclusionary language to eliminate part of the usual casting requirements, including spell slots.
Without including the spell slot, I'm not sure the ability to cast a designated spell as a bonus action is really worth a feat.
You don't see the value in casting, say, dimension door as a bonus action and still having your action free that turn? Or, if you want lower-level examples, armor of agathys, bane, faerie fire etc.?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I understand that cantrips don’t use slots but wouldn’t a person have to use a slot to imbue a leveled spell into a card.
I’ve dug around the interwebs and have found a wide range of different views on this and are confused. How can a higher level spell be placed in an object and not use a spell slot as that would at least to me be a really broken feature.
I found this also:
Source: Unearthed Arcana 85 - Wonders of the Multiverse
Prerequisite: 4th Level; Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard Class
You have learned to channel your magic through a deck of playing cards, granting you these benefits:
Card Focus. You can use a deck of cards as your spellcasting focus. When you use the deck as a focus to cast a spell that deals damage, roll a d4. You gain a bonus to one damage roll of the spell equal to the number rolled. This bonus applies to one creature of your choice that you can see damaged by the spell; you can use this benefit a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
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 mundane conversation and card-handling.
Hidden Ace. When you finish a long rest, you can choose one spell you know and imbue it into a card; the chosen spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and its level must be less than or equal to your proficiency bonus. While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use your bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic.
so after finding this and finding it too lacks detail and is labeled UA I just can’t understand how this doesn’t intend for the user to have to use a leveled spell slot to infuse a playing card with a spell.
Because it doesn’t say you use a slot then. All the card does is let you prep 1 additional spell with a 1 action cast, and then spend a bonus action instead of an action to cast that spell, using all other casting rules and requirements as normal.
The feat allows you to imbue a non-magical item with a spell you may not even know, turning it into a consumable magical item. Without the aid of magical items, you cannot cast a spell you do not know. This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature. There are no spell slots used in the imbuing or use of the spell because you are not casting the spell, the magic item is. Similar to how infused items only use your action economy to use.
The language of Cartomancer is clearly distinct from a magic item that casts a spell. With the feat it says “you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within”, whereas for a Wand of Magic Detection it says “you can expend 1 charge as an action to cast the detect magic spell from [the wand]”. And a feat like Fey Touched that gives you a free cast specifically says that you cast the spell without using a spell slot. Thus Cartomancer clearly has the character casting the spell as opposed to the object and lacks any exclusionary language to eliminate part of the usual casting requirements, including spell slots.
So? Fey Touch grants you a spell, not the ability to imbue an object. The Wand of Magic Detection is not a consumable magic item. It has charges. When you look at a consumable magic item that allows you to cast spells, like the Candle of Invocation, you spend an action to light the candle, which will cast the Gate. When you use an action to drink the Potion of Animal Friendship, you cast Animal Friendship. Most of the time, consumables will grant effects of a spell, but there are some that follow this specific wording to cast spells as part of an action in using the item, just like Cartomancer does (flourishing the card as a BA). None of these items use a spell slot because it is the magic items doing the work and their use renders the object mundane.
Except something that casts from the item says so, as I indicated, and that language is not present in Cartomancer. These are two distinct circumstances, so there is no intrinsic parity between how a magic item functions and how the feat functions. Plus it would be ridiculously broken if the feat essentially give spell slots of level 6 or higher, so one can then logically extrapolate that “you cast” means you’re still using slots as normal.
When you use an action to drink the Potion of Animal Friendship, you cast Animal Friendship.
The potion explicitly says you can cast the spell "at will for 1 hour", not via spell slots
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When you use an action to drink the Potion of Animal Friendship, you cast Animal Friendship.
The potion explicitly says you can cast the spell "at will for 1 hour", not via spell slots
Bad example I guess. Now do the Candle of Invocation.
“you can cast the Gate spell with it”
Again, there is specific language that the item is being used to cast the spell that is not present in Cartomancer, which simply says that you cast the spell previously selected.
When you use an action to drink the Potion of Animal Friendship, you cast Animal Friendship.
The potion explicitly says you can cast the spell "at will for 1 hour", not via spell slots
Bad example I guess. Now do the Candle of Invocation.
“you can cast the Gate spell with it”
Again, there is specific language that the item is being used to cast the spell that is not present in Cartomancer, which simply says that you cast the spell previously selected.
Cast the spell WITHIN!
Right, which simply affirms the spell being cast is the spell you selected. As much as you might want an extra spell slot, that is clearly not the RAI or RAW of this feat, and poor comparisons to magic items don’t prove anything the other way. Not only is the fundamental comparison apples to oranges, but the crucial language is different.
Doesn’t enchanting a magical object require the caster to expend the required spell energy and materials to infuse the object with the spells magic?
how can a caster just automatically create a magical object without having to expend any resources or effort to do.
I get magical items have been created that have the ability to allow the user to cast magic spells and effects even if the player themselves can’t cast magic but before someone else can use the object, someone or something had to put the magic into the item and I would think if it was so incredibly easy magic items of all types would be all over the place.
Doesn’t enchanting a magical object require the caster to expend the required spell energy and materials to infuse the object with the spells magic?
how can a caster just automatically create a magical object without having to expend any resources or effort to do.
I get magical items have been created that have the ability to allow the user to cast magic spells and effects even if the player themselves can’t cast magic but before someone else can use the object, someone or something had to put the magic into the item and I would think if it was so incredibly easy magic items of all types would be all over the place.
This doesn’t make any sense.
There is no hard player-facing rules for “enchanting a magic object”. And, for all practical purposes, there is no magic object here. Yes, for the flavor of this feat it’s themed around cards, but in essence all you are doing is selecting one spell from your spell list that meets certain criteria as one that you get to cast as a bonus action instead of an action once that day. That is the extent of the modifications to casting described, and as such all other rules for casting remain unmodified, and the presence of a small piece of paper is purely narrative, not mechanical. The feat says you pick a spell, and that’s all that happens at the front end. And likewise, at the back end all you are doing is casting the spell as a bonus action.
Yeah... You're the one casting the spell, and it doesn't say the card is a magic item, which means we don't use the "casting from a magic item" rules. You're using a spell slot. It's not that complicated.
Right, which simply affirms the spell being cast is the spell you selected. As much as you might want an extra spell slot, that is clearly not the RAI or RAW of this feat, and poor comparisons to magic items don’t prove anything the other way. Not only is the fundamental comparison apples to oranges, but the crucial language is different.
Wrong! Mine are fantastic comparisons to magic items that you did not even see coming and which have completely snowed your argument. I don't really care if your motivated reasoning prevents you from acknowledging it either. You can play D&D however you want. I encourage houseruling things you don't like. Have at it. Wrong forum though.
As much as you might want to force upon others your anti-player interpretation, it is not supported by what existed in the game prior to the feat's publication and therefore is not RAW. The feat does not cast a spell like the silly examples you had provided; your argument does not logically follow. The feat grants an ability similar to Artificer Infusions, which does not require the use of a spell slot at the time of imbuing the mundane object and uses wording very similar to the feature. The generally follows the same wording as used in a consumable magic item that has existed since 2014 and which only has wording that differs to accommodate the very modular spell choices available. The RAW is clear and the RAI is abundantly clear that they were going for a feat that bears a resemblance to the Artificer.
Yet, hilariously, you argue that because the wording is not exact, the interpretation can be dismissed while at the same time, your examples that are so far removed from that which you are trying to argue, I question whether you are even arguing in good faith. Fey Touched that grants spells? Wands that use charges? Really? Why not review the Artificer page because it seems like you really need to.
Yeah... You're the one casting the spell, and it doesn't say the card is a magic item, which means we don't use the "casting from a magic item" rules. You're using a spell slot. It's not that complicated.
This is basically a predesignated Quicken.
I disagree. The feat says that the card is imbued and, to once again draw upon Artificer Infusions, imbuing an object turns it into a magical item. Further, when the card is used, the description says that the card loses its magic, not spell, similar to how some consumable magic items are made mundane with use.
Yeah... You're the one casting the spell, and it doesn't say the card is a magic item, which means we don't use the "casting from a magic item" rules. You're using a spell slot. It's not that complicated.
This is basically a predesignated Quicken.
I disagree. The feat says that the card is imbued and, to once again draw upon Artificer Infusions, imbuing an object turns it into a magical item. Further, when the card is used, the description says that the card loses its magic, not spell, similar to how some consumable magic items are made mundane with use.
You are again making a specious comparison of two disparate elements of gameplay. Artificer Infusions make magic items because the feature specifically says it does, not as an inherent aspect of the verb “infuse” being used.
Yeah... You're the one casting the spell, and it doesn't say the card is a magic item, which means we don't use the "casting from a magic item" rules. You're using a spell slot. It's not that complicated.
This is basically a predesignated Quicken.
I disagree. The feat says that the card is imbued and, to once again draw upon Artificer Infusions, imbuing an object turns it into a magical item. Further, when the card is used, the description says that the card loses its magic, not spell, similar to how some consumable magic items are made mundane with use.
You are again making a specious comparison of two disparate elements of gameplay. Artificer Infusions make magic items because the feature specifically says it does, not as an inherent aspect of the verb “infuse” being used.
It is the closest we have in wording to the Cartomacer feat. Certainly closer than the ridiculous Fey Touched example. You have not been able to make a rational argument that they are two disparate elements of gameplay other than you really really want it to be so. Not good enough for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. The feat clearly says that the cards are infused imbued with magic, which dissipates upon use. I don't know what to tell you.
One would have hoped that they had re-used the mechanic but unfortunately that isn't specified so we're left guessing.
No, because a scroll is something anyone who can cast the spell can pick up and use at any point after it is made, whereas the card created by this feat is specific to the player and only exists for a limited time. Plus scrolls don’t use spell slots, which as has been noted would be broken here. You could say it’s a similar principle, but the card is a quick and dirty application.
I'd like to point out that not requiring a spell slot for the feat is only "broken" at high levels.
Is an extra 9th level spell via the feat "broken" ... arguably yes since you could load a bonus action wish into it and cast any other spell of 8th level and below as a bonus action - which would be very powerful.
On the other hand, if the card was limited to 5th level spells and below (which it isn't RAW), I'm not sure anyone would argue it was "broken". It would be a decent feat effectively getting an extra pre-decided 5th level spell that could be cast as a bonus action. Definitely desirable but not game breakingly powerful.
Personally, I wish the feat was more clear as to whether a spell slot was required to imbue the card or not. Without including the spell slot, I'm not sure the ability to cast a designated spell as a bonus action is really worth a feat.
The feat allows you to imbue a non-magical item with a spell you may not even know, turning it into a consumable magical item. Without the aid of magical items, you cannot cast a spell you do not know. This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature. There are no spell slots used in the imbuing or use of the spell because you are not casting the spell, the magic item is. Similar to how infused items only use your action economy to use.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
How do you know that’s RAI? Have they said that anywhere? Or did Crawford tell you?
The language of Cartomancer is clearly distinct from a magic item that casts a spell. With the feat it says “you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within”, whereas for a Wand of Magic Detection it says “you can expend 1 charge as an action to cast the detect magic spell from [the wand]”. And a feat like Fey Touched that gives you a free cast specifically says that you cast the spell without using a spell slot. Thus Cartomancer clearly has the character casting the spell as opposed to the object and lacks any exclusionary language to eliminate part of the usual casting requirements, including spell slots.
You don't see the value in casting, say, dimension door as a bonus action and still having your action free that turn? Or, if you want lower-level examples, armor of agathys, bane, faerie fire etc.?
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I understand that cantrips don’t use slots but wouldn’t a person have to use a slot to imbue a leveled spell into a card.
I’ve dug around the interwebs and have found a wide range of different views on this and are confused. How can a higher level spell be placed in an object and not use a spell slot as that would at least to me be a really broken feature.
I found this also:
Source: Unearthed Arcana 85 - Wonders of the Multiverse
Prerequisite: 4th Level; Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard Class
You have learned to channel your magic through a deck of playing cards, granting you these benefits:
so after finding this and finding it too lacks detail and is labeled UA I just can’t understand how this doesn’t intend for the user to have to use a leveled spell slot to infuse a playing card with a spell.
Because it doesn’t say you use a slot then. All the card does is let you prep 1 additional spell with a 1 action cast, and then spend a bonus action instead of an action to cast that spell, using all other casting rules and requirements as normal.
Except something that casts from the item says so, as I indicated, and that language is not present in Cartomancer. These are two distinct circumstances, so there is no intrinsic parity between how a magic item functions and how the feat functions. Plus it would be ridiculously broken if the feat essentially give spell slots of level 6 or higher, so one can then logically extrapolate that “you cast” means you’re still using slots as normal.
The potion explicitly says you can cast the spell "at will for 1 hour", not via spell slots
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
“you can cast the Gate spell with it”
Again, there is specific language that the item is being used to cast the spell that is not present in Cartomancer, which simply says that you cast the spell previously selected.
Right, which simply affirms the spell being cast is the spell you selected. As much as you might want an extra spell slot, that is clearly not the RAI or RAW of this feat, and poor comparisons to magic items don’t prove anything the other way. Not only is the fundamental comparison apples to oranges, but the crucial language is different.
Doesn’t enchanting a magical object require the caster to expend the required spell energy and materials to infuse the object with the spells magic?
how can a caster just automatically create a magical object without having to expend any resources or effort to do.
I get magical items have been created that have the ability to allow the user to cast magic spells and effects even if the player themselves can’t cast magic but before someone else can use the object, someone or something had to put the magic into the item and I would think if it was so incredibly easy magic items of all types would be all over the place.
This doesn’t make any sense.
There is no hard player-facing rules for “enchanting a magic object”. And, for all practical purposes, there is no magic object here. Yes, for the flavor of this feat it’s themed around cards, but in essence all you are doing is selecting one spell from your spell list that meets certain criteria as one that you get to cast as a bonus action instead of an action once that day. That is the extent of the modifications to casting described, and as such all other rules for casting remain unmodified, and the presence of a small piece of paper is purely narrative, not mechanical. The feat says you pick a spell, and that’s all that happens at the front end. And likewise, at the back end all you are doing is casting the spell as a bonus action.
Yeah... You're the one casting the spell, and it doesn't say the card is a magic item, which means we don't use the "casting from a magic item" rules. You're using a spell slot. It's not that complicated.
This is basically a predesignated Quicken.
Wrong! Mine are fantastic comparisons to magic items that you did not even see coming and which have completely snowed your argument. I don't really care if your motivated reasoning prevents you from acknowledging it either. You can play D&D however you want. I encourage houseruling things you don't like. Have at it. Wrong forum though.
As much as you might want to force upon others your anti-player interpretation, it is not supported by what existed in the game prior to the feat's publication and therefore is not RAW. The feat does not cast a spell like the silly examples you had provided; your argument does not logically follow. The feat grants an ability similar to Artificer Infusions, which does not require the use of a spell slot at the time of imbuing the mundane object and uses wording very similar to the feature. The generally follows the same wording as used in a consumable magic item that has existed since 2014 and which only has wording that differs to accommodate the very modular spell choices available. The RAW is clear and the RAI is abundantly clear that they were going for a feat that bears a resemblance to the Artificer.
Yet, hilariously, you argue that because the wording is not exact, the interpretation can be dismissed while at the same time, your examples that are so far removed from that which you are trying to argue, I question whether you are even arguing in good faith. Fey Touched that grants spells? Wands that use charges? Really? Why not review the Artificer page because it seems like you really need to.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I disagree. The feat says that the card is imbued and, to once again draw upon Artificer Infusions, imbuing an object turns it into a magical item. Further, when the card is used, the description says that the card loses its magic, not spell, similar to how some consumable magic items are made mundane with use.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You are again making a specious comparison of two disparate elements of gameplay. Artificer Infusions make magic items because the feature specifically says it does, not as an inherent aspect of the verb “infuse” being used.
It is the closest we have in wording to the Cartomacer feat. Certainly closer than the ridiculous Fey Touched example. You have not been able to make a rational argument that they are two disparate elements of gameplay other than you really really want it to be so. Not good enough for anyone who doesn't already agree with you. The feat clearly says that the cards are
infusedimbued with magic, which dissipates upon use. I don't know what to tell you.DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing