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.
Certainly closer than the ridiculous Fey Touched example.
Sorry, you'll have to explain a little more clearly why you think comparing one feat to another is ridiculous, but comparing a feat to a class feature is helpful
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)
Certainly closer than the ridiculous Fey Touched example.
Sorry, you'll have to explain a little more clearly why you think comparing one feat to another is ridiculous, but comparing a feat to a class feature is helpful
If you can't read the posts where this is already done, how is me explaining it again going to help you? I am but mortal.
Certainly closer than the ridiculous Fey Touched example.
Sorry, you'll have to explain a little more clearly why you think comparing one feat to another is ridiculous, but comparing a feat to a class feature is helpful
If you can't read the posts where this is already done, how is me explaining it again going to help you? I am but mortal.
I did. You offered no such explanation. You simply made an assertion ("This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature") with no rationale for why you think that makes sense
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)
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.
Okay. I'm gonna pick at these lines a bit, because that's the only part of the entire post that really addresses gameplay mechanic talk.
First problem: Artificer Infusions don't, at all, allow you to cast spells directly. Cartomancer does. The closest thing to that is the ability to create a Spellwrought Tattoo (Cantrip or 1st-level) and cast from that. But then you're very explicitly creating a magic item and using it to cast, which means it uses the magic item casting rules.
Second problem: Artificer Infusions also very explicitly state they're creating a magic item. Cartomancer doesn't.
(Detail to mention: You might be mistaking Infusions with the Spell-Storing Item. In that case, it's replicating the spell's effects, not casting at all. While the function is mostly the same as casting the spell, it's not actually cast in this way.)
Third problem: "generally uses the same wording" is wrong. What this actually does is spelled out, and it does nothing more than it states.
The actual breakdown of the feat's Hidden Ace feature (which is the only part in question here): -You get to store a spell of a level you can cast (based on your spell slots, not your class levels, mind you) --This, notably, does NOT need to be a spell you know, meaning wizards don't need it in their spellbooks and learned or prep casters can take it as an additional spell with the extra conditions --There is an additional restriction on the spell that it must be 1 action to cast normally -The infusion lasts for exactly 8 hours from your long rest -The activation is to flourish the card (meaning you need your hand free for it) and cast the spell as a bonus action --As you're the one casting the spell and the feat doesn't make the card a magic item (it would say if it did) it uses normal spellcasting rules, including requiring a spell slot to cast --There's nothing stopping you from upcasting the spell, for the same reasons as listed above
First problem: Artificer Infusions don't, at all, allow you to cast spells directly. Cartomancer does. The closest thing to that is the ability to create a Spellwrought Tattoo (Cantrip or 1st-level) and cast from that. But then you're very explicitly creating a magic item and using it to cast, which means it uses the magic item casting rules.
Yes, I do agree here. It is not exactly like Artificer Infusion and I do not see this as a problem with my argument. Instead of allowing you to imbue a mundane object with a specific list of effects tailor-made for the Artificer class (infusions), this feat allows you to cast a spell that is available to your specific class, which emulates the spirit of what the Infusions feature does. This is not a problem because Cartomancer is not a class-specific feat and it is not designed to replicate the Infusions exactly. If it were, they would have just made an Infusion-based feat.
Second problem: Artificer Infusions also very explicitly state they're creating a magic item. Cartomancer doesn't.
In an attempt to legitimately understand your concern here, is there any object in D&D that once infused with magic, is still not magic? Serious question because I genuinely do not believe so, but I do not know every published item.
(Detail to mention: You might be mistaking Infusions with the Spell-Storing Item. In that case, it's replicating the spell's effects, not casting at all. While the function is mostly the same as casting the spell, it's not actually cast in this way.)
I am not making this mistake here, but thank you. I understand that the spell has to be cast to be stored with the Ring of Spell-Storing, but the ring specifically states in its description that this must be done. It also specifically states that a spell slot is used in the process. The Cartomancer feat does not state that either is done at the moment that the spell is imbued. It does state that you cast a spell using it at the time of use, but I will address that in my next response.
Third problem: "generally uses the same wording" is wrong. What this actually does is spelled out, and it does nothing more than it states.
Yes. Following that line of reasoning, there is no description that states a spell slot is used and therefore we must conclude that it does not use one. All the magic items I could find that cast spells used action economy and charges. All except the Candle of Invocation, which allows you to cast the spell Gate as an action. This was the only magic item that even remotely resembles what Cartomancer can accomplish that I could find. Things like Ring of Telekinesis state that you, specifically, are casting the spell, but often have a line about at-will. This again leads me to the Candle of Invocation as a comparable example in the manner in which the spell is cast and the outcome of use.
As you're the one casting the spell and the feat doesn't make the card a magic item (it would say if it did) it uses normal spellcasting rules, including requiring a spell slot to cast
We disagree here. The feature of this feat does say that upon use, the object loses its magic. That would necessarily imply that it was magical before its use. This follows an admittedly less common but still non-zero number of items that are used in a specific way to cast a spell and then become inert after.
Also, I appreciate you not initiating our debate with condescension. You leave me the room to have a discussion and possibly, to change my mind.
Second problem: Artificer Infusions also very explicitly state they're creating a magic item. Cartomancer doesn't.
In an attempt to legitimately understand your concern here, is there any object in D&D that once infused with magic, is still not magic? Serious question because I genuinely do not believe so, but I do not know every published item.
The issue is more that, just because it has magic, doesn't mean it's a magic item under the rules. Unless it explicitly calls the thing a magic item, it doesn't follow the rules of casting from one.
(Detail to mention: You might be mistaking Infusions with the Spell-Storing Item. In that case, it's replicating the spell's effects, not casting at all. While the function is mostly the same as casting the spell, it's not actually cast in this way.)
I am not making this mistake here, but thank you. I understand that the spell has to be cast to be stored with the Ring of Spell-Storing, but the ring specifically states in its description that this must be done. It also specifically states that a spell slot is used in the process. The Cartomancer feat does not state that either is done at the moment that the spell is imbued. It does state that you cast a spell using it at the time of use, but I will address that in my next response.
I wasn't referring to the Ring of Spell Storing. I was referring to the 11th-level Artificer feature. It doesn't make you cast the item, you just designate one of the allowed levels from the list (whether you know it or not) and get a set number of uses of that spell.
Third problem: "generally uses the same wording" is wrong. What this actually does is spelled out, and it does nothing more than it states.
Yes. Following that line of reasoning, there is no description that states a spell slot is used and therefore we must conclude that it does not use one. All the magic items I could find that cast spells used action economy and charges. All except the Candle of Invocation, which allows you to cast the spell Gate as an action. This was the only magic item that even remotely resembles what Cartomancer can accomplish that I could find. Things like Ring of Telekinesis state that you, specifically, are casting the spell, but often have a line about at-will. This again leads me to the Candle of Invocation as a comparable example in the manner in which the spell is cast and the outcome of use.
When the feature doesn't provide an exception to a rule, the rule doesn't have an exception. This just feels like a repeat of the discussion about the Scribes Wizard getting a shorter time for copying spells, and someone was insisting the pen getting to make its own ink meant you also don't have to pay anything, even though no feature states that you get a reduced cost.
As you're the one casting the spell and the feat doesn't make the card a magic item (it would say if it did) it uses normal spellcasting rules, including requiring a spell slot to cast
We disagree here. The feature of this feat does say that upon use, the object loses its magic. That would necessarily imply that it was magical before its use. This follows an admittedly less common but still non-zero number of items that are used in a specific way to cast a spell and then become inert after.
Back to my first point in this post, just because it has magic doesn't mean it follows the rules for magic items. Those are a specific list of items, in terms of gameplay mechanics.
The issue is more that, just because it has magic, doesn't mean it's a magic item under the rules. Unless it explicitly calls the thing a magic item, it doesn't follow the rules of casting from one.
Okay, but I asked you for examples of this in the game. If my argument requires a burden of proof, so does yours.
I wasn't referring to the Ring of Spell Storing. I was referring to the 11th-level Artificer feature. It doesn't make you cast the item, you just designate one of the allowed levels from the list (whether you know it or not) and get a set number of uses of that spell.
I see. In that case, again, no, I am not making this mistake. It was never part of my argument.
When the feature doesn't provide an exception to a rule, the rule doesn't have an exception. This just feels like a repeat of the discussion about the Scribes Wizard getting a shorter time for copying spells, and someone was insisting the pen getting to make its own ink meant you also don't have to pay anything, even though no feature states that you get a reduced cost.
I am not arguing that it is, nor will I chase a red herring about the Scribe Wizard. We do not agree on whether the card becomes magical after it has been imbued with magic and you have refused to furnish evidence that it remains mundane. This is deeply problematic, especially since the feature of the feat itself states that the item loses its magical properties after it is used. It loses its magic, not your magic. This puts it in the same category of a consumable magic item. Many of them become inert after use.
Back to my first point in this post, just because it has magic doesn't mean it follows the rules for magic items. Those are a specific list of items, in terms of gameplay mechanics.
To imbue something is to permeate or saturate something. It is as magical as it is physical after it is imbued, as the creators have stressed many times that their choice of words is deliberate. If you are unwilling or unable to produce some example in the game using only the strict application of the rules that you are trying to impose upon me, that demonstrates that a magically imbued object is somehow not magical, we might as well just agree to disagree because I will not be shouldered with an exceptional burden of proof when those who oppose me deflect and avoid that same burden.
A magically imbued yet non-magical item, if you please.
The issue is more that, just because it has magic, doesn't mean it's a magic item under the rules. Unless it explicitly calls the thing a magic item, it doesn't follow the rules of casting from one.
Okay, but I asked you for examples of this in the game. If my argument requires a burden of proof, so does yours.
I wasn't referring to the Ring of Spell Storing. I was referring to the 11th-level Artificer feature. It doesn't make you cast the item, you just designate one of the allowed levels from the list (whether you know it or not) and get a set number of uses of that spell.
I see. In that case, again, no, I am not making this mistake. It was never part of my argument.
When the feature doesn't provide an exception to a rule, the rule doesn't have an exception. This just feels like a repeat of the discussion about the Scribes Wizard getting a shorter time for copying spells, and someone was insisting the pen getting to make its own ink meant you also don't have to pay anything, even though no feature states that you get a reduced cost.
I am not arguing that it is, nor will I chase a red herring about the Scribe Wizard. We do not agree on whether the card becomes magical after it has been imbued with magic and you have refused to furnish evidence that it remains mundane. This is deeply problematic, especially since the feature of the feat itself states that the item loses its magical properties after it is used. It loses its magic, not your magic. This puts it in the same category of a consumable magic item. Many of them become inert after use.
Back to my first point in this post, just because it has magic doesn't mean it follows the rules for magic items. Those are a specific list of items, in terms of gameplay mechanics.
To imbue something is to permeate or saturate something. It is as magical as it is physical after it is imbued, as the creators have stressed many times that their choice of words is deliberate. If you are unwilling or unable to produce some example in the game using only the strict application of the rules that you are trying to impose upon me, that demonstrates that a magically imbued object is somehow not magical, we might as well just agree to disagree because I will not be shouldered with an exceptional burden of proof when those who oppose me deflect and avoid that same burden.
A magically imbued yet non-magical item, if you please.
If the card became a magic item in the mechanical sense, the feat would expressly say so as the Infusion feature does for Artificers. The Air Bud rule of “show me where it expressly says something does not happen” is not a good basis for your argument. All the feat says is that you pick a spell from your class list that meets a few criteria, and then in the next 8 hours you can cast that spell once as a bonus action. As it says “you cast” and the only other modifying language is making it a bonus action, all other rules and requirements for casting the spell remain unmodified.
Precisely. Infuse Item actually works in favor of this NOT being a magic item because it says it turns the items into magic items. As the Cartomqncer feat stands, the card isn't a magic item, it's merely a part of a feature. An interesting piece of evidence supporting this: Only the person with the feature can use the card, despite it not requiring attunement. Magic items can be used by anyone, generally, with exceptions being listed in the magic item's description.
Precisely. Infuse Item actually works in favor of this NOT being a magic item because it says it turns the items into magic items. As the Cartomqncer feat stands, the card isn't a magic item, it's merely a part of a feature. An interesting piece of evidence supporting this: Only the person with the feature can use the card, despite it not requiring attunement. Magic items can be used by anyone, generally, with exceptions being listed in the magic item's description.
Edit: First, you may not really understand my argument if you believe my argument is that it is exactly like Artificer Infusions. I feel like I have been quite clear on this. Cartomancer is a class open approximation of it. It replicates the spirit of the feature. To the argument though...
When determining whether something is magical, I will refer you to Sage Advice, as there are situations where it is not explicitly stated, yet is magical still.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item? Does not say, so does not apply.
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? It creates the effects of a spell, so yes.
Is it a spell attack? Depending on which spell you put in the card, the feature being this imbued card, can be.
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? It does not say, so does not apply.
Does its description say it’s magical? Upon use, the card then immediately loses its magic, meaning that it was magical before use, so a resounding yes.
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
The underline is my own, but if only one is needed, then the card is temporarily a magical item.
Precisely. Infuse Item actually works in favor of this NOT being a magic item because it says it turns the items into magic items. As the Cartomqncer feat stands, the card isn't a magic item, it's merely a part of a feature. An interesting piece of evidence supporting this: Only the person with the feature can use the card, despite it not requiring attunement. Magic items can be used by anyone, generally, with exceptions being listed in the magic item's description.
Edit: First, you may not really understand my argument if you believe my argument is that it is exactly like Artificer Infusions. I feel like I have been quite clear on this. Cartomancer is a class open approximation of it. It replicates the spirit of the feature. To the argument though...
When determining whether something is magical, I will refer you to Sage Advice, as there are situations where it is not explicitly stated, yet is magical still.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item? Does not say, so does not apply.
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? It creates the effects of a spell, so yes.
Is it a spell attack? Depending on which spell you put in the card, the feature being this imbued card, can be.
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? It does not say, so does not apply.
Does its description say it’s magical? Upon use, the card then immediately loses its magic, meaning that it was magical before use, so a resounding yes.
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
The underline is my own, but if only one is needed, then the card is temporarily a magical item.
“Magical” is different from “magic item” in the mechanical sense. Case in point: a Genie’s Vessel from the Warlock subclass feature is clearly an item that is magical, rather than having the resistance to all damage attributed to magic items in the DMG section on them, it specifically is immune to psychic and poison with no further properties. This is because while it is an item that is magical, it is not a magic item in the sense of those items that have their own separate entries. You’re conflating a descriptive property with a mechanical one.
Yeah. I've never once argued that it's not magical. I've been referencing the magic item rules and pointing out how those, specifically, don't apply here. Which nullifies the argument about infusions AND about items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles.
Yeah. I've never once argued that it's not magical. I've been referencing the magic item rules and pointing out how those, specifically, don't apply here. Which nullifies the argument about infusions AND about items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles.
Once again, can you furnish an example of a magical item that is not a magic item? If the answer is no, it seems that Sage Advice has given us what we need to arbitrate the ambiguity here: the card, once imbued with magic, is a consumable magic item because, if nothing else, the description says it is magical. It seems that you are unwilling to give ground here and I certainly am unwilling to give ground in the absence of at least one example to support your interpretation of the rules, so it seems that we are done. Until there is some errata that offers additional clarity, I will DM my games using the Sage Advice rules. You and those who found their way onto my Ignore List are free to ignore them, but I am not seeing a reason why Sage Advice rules do not apply when they were given specifically for an example such as this.
Once again, can you furnish an example of a magical item that is not a magic item?
Items invested with magic by an artificer's Magical Tinkering
At 1st level, you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects. To use this ability, you must have thieves’ tools or artisan’s tools in hand. You then touch a Tiny nonmagical object as an action and give it one of the following magical properties of your choice
Genie warlock's Genie's Vessel
Your patron gifts you a magical vessel that grants you a measure of the genie’s power. The vessel is a Tiny object, and you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
Scribes wizard's Wizardly Quill
As a bonus action, you can magically create a Tiny quill in your free hand. The magic quill has the following properties
Items created or imbued with magic by any number of spells, such as cordon of arrows
You plant four pieces of nonmagical ammunition – arrows or crossbow bolts – in the ground within range and lay magic upon them to protect an area.
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)
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.?
I see a lot of value in that but I don't really think it is equivalent to many other feats or an ASI. It is also a 1/day use so it becomes situational in terms of when it will be best to use it. So, yes it is a nice to have feature, but without including the spell slot for the casting it just doesn't have enough utility and value, in my opinion, to be worthwhile.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Sorry, you'll have to explain a little more clearly why you think comparing one feat to another is ridiculous, but comparing a feat to a class feature is 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 you can't read the posts where this is already done, how is me explaining it again going to help you? I am but mortal.
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 did. You offered no such explanation. You simply made an assertion ("This feat gives you a hackerman version of the Artificer infusion feature") with no rationale for why you think that makes sense
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)
Okay. I'm gonna pick at these lines a bit, because that's the only part of the entire post that really addresses gameplay mechanic talk.
First problem: Artificer Infusions don't, at all, allow you to cast spells directly. Cartomancer does. The closest thing to that is the ability to create a Spellwrought Tattoo (Cantrip or 1st-level) and cast from that. But then you're very explicitly creating a magic item and using it to cast, which means it uses the magic item casting rules.
Second problem: Artificer Infusions also very explicitly state they're creating a magic item. Cartomancer doesn't.
(Detail to mention: You might be mistaking Infusions with the Spell-Storing Item. In that case, it's replicating the spell's effects, not casting at all. While the function is mostly the same as casting the spell, it's not actually cast in this way.)
Third problem: "generally uses the same wording" is wrong. What this actually does is spelled out, and it does nothing more than it states.
The actual breakdown of the feat's Hidden Ace feature (which is the only part in question here):
-You get to store a spell of a level you can cast (based on your spell slots, not your class levels, mind you)
--This, notably, does NOT need to be a spell you know, meaning wizards don't need it in their spellbooks and learned or prep casters can take it as an additional spell with the extra conditions
--There is an additional restriction on the spell that it must be 1 action to cast normally
-The infusion lasts for exactly 8 hours from your long rest
-The activation is to flourish the card (meaning you need your hand free for it) and cast the spell as a bonus action
--As you're the one casting the spell and the feat doesn't make the card a magic item (it would say if it did) it uses normal spellcasting rules, including requiring a spell slot to cast
--There's nothing stopping you from upcasting the spell, for the same reasons as listed above
Okay sounds good.
Yes, I do agree here. It is not exactly like Artificer Infusion and I do not see this as a problem with my argument. Instead of allowing you to imbue a mundane object with a specific list of effects tailor-made for the Artificer class (infusions), this feat allows you to cast a spell that is available to your specific class, which emulates the spirit of what the Infusions feature does. This is not a problem because Cartomancer is not a class-specific feat and it is not designed to replicate the Infusions exactly. If it were, they would have just made an Infusion-based feat.
In an attempt to legitimately understand your concern here, is there any object in D&D that once infused with magic, is still not magic? Serious question because I genuinely do not believe so, but I do not know every published item.
I am not making this mistake here, but thank you. I understand that the spell has to be cast to be stored with the Ring of Spell-Storing, but the ring specifically states in its description that this must be done. It also specifically states that a spell slot is used in the process. The Cartomancer feat does not state that either is done at the moment that the spell is imbued. It does state that you cast a spell using it at the time of use, but I will address that in my next response.
Yes. Following that line of reasoning, there is no description that states a spell slot is used and therefore we must conclude that it does not use one. All the magic items I could find that cast spells used action economy and charges. All except the Candle of Invocation, which allows you to cast the spell Gate as an action. This was the only magic item that even remotely resembles what Cartomancer can accomplish that I could find. Things like Ring of Telekinesis state that you, specifically, are casting the spell, but often have a line about at-will. This again leads me to the Candle of Invocation as a comparable example in the manner in which the spell is cast and the outcome of use.
We disagree here. The feature of this feat does say that upon use, the object loses its magic. That would necessarily imply that it was magical before its use. This follows an admittedly less common but still non-zero number of items that are used in a specific way to cast a spell and then become inert after.
Also, I appreciate you not initiating our debate with condescension. You leave me the room to have a discussion and possibly, to change my mind.
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
The issue is more that, just because it has magic, doesn't mean it's a magic item under the rules. Unless it explicitly calls the thing a magic item, it doesn't follow the rules of casting from one.
I wasn't referring to the Ring of Spell Storing. I was referring to the 11th-level Artificer feature. It doesn't make you cast the item, you just designate one of the allowed levels from the list (whether you know it or not) and get a set number of uses of that spell.
When the feature doesn't provide an exception to a rule, the rule doesn't have an exception. This just feels like a repeat of the discussion about the Scribes Wizard getting a shorter time for copying spells, and someone was insisting the pen getting to make its own ink meant you also don't have to pay anything, even though no feature states that you get a reduced cost.
Back to my first point in this post, just because it has magic doesn't mean it follows the rules for magic items. Those are a specific list of items, in terms of gameplay mechanics.
Okay, but I asked you for examples of this in the game. If my argument requires a burden of proof, so does yours.
I see. In that case, again, no, I am not making this mistake. It was never part of my argument.
I am not arguing that it is, nor will I chase a red herring about the Scribe Wizard. We do not agree on whether the card becomes magical after it has been imbued with magic and you have refused to furnish evidence that it remains mundane. This is deeply problematic, especially since the feature of the feat itself states that the item loses its magical properties after it is used. It loses its magic, not your magic. This puts it in the same category of a consumable magic item. Many of them become inert after use.
To imbue something is to permeate or saturate something. It is as magical as it is physical after it is imbued, as the creators have stressed many times that their choice of words is deliberate. If you are unwilling or unable to produce some example in the game using only the strict application of the rules that you are trying to impose upon me, that demonstrates that a magically imbued object is somehow not magical, we might as well just agree to disagree because I will not be shouldered with an exceptional burden of proof when those who oppose me deflect and avoid that same burden.
A magically imbued yet non-magical item, if you please.
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
If the card became a magic item in the mechanical sense, the feat would expressly say so as the Infusion feature does for Artificers. The Air Bud rule of “show me where it expressly says something does not happen” is not a good basis for your argument. All the feat says is that you pick a spell from your class list that meets a few criteria, and then in the next 8 hours you can cast that spell once as a bonus action. As it says “you cast” and the only other modifying language is making it a bonus action, all other rules and requirements for casting the spell remain unmodified.
Precisely. Infuse Item actually works in favor of this NOT being a magic item because it says it turns the items into magic items. As the Cartomqncer feat stands, the card isn't a magic item, it's merely a part of a feature. An interesting piece of evidence supporting this: Only the person with the feature can use the card, despite it not requiring attunement. Magic items can be used by anyone, generally, with exceptions being listed in the magic item's description.
Edit: First, you may not really understand my argument if you believe my argument is that it is exactly like Artificer Infusions. I feel like I have been quite clear on this. Cartomancer is a class open approximation of it. It replicates the spirit of the feature. To the argument though...
When determining whether something is magical, I will refer you to Sage Advice, as there are situations where it is not explicitly stated, yet is magical still.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
The underline is my own, but if only one is needed, then the card is temporarily a magical item.
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
“Magical” is different from “magic item” in the mechanical sense. Case in point: a Genie’s Vessel from the Warlock subclass feature is clearly an item that is magical, rather than having the resistance to all damage attributed to magic items in the DMG section on them, it specifically is immune to psychic and poison with no further properties. This is because while it is an item that is magical, it is not a magic item in the sense of those items that have their own separate entries. You’re conflating a descriptive property with a mechanical one.
Yeah. I've never once argued that it's not magical. I've been referencing the magic item rules and pointing out how those, specifically, don't apply here. Which nullifies the argument about infusions AND about items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles.
Once again, can you furnish an example of a magical item that is not a magic item? If the answer is no, it seems that Sage Advice has given us what we need to arbitrate the ambiguity here: the card, once imbued with magic, is a consumable magic item because, if nothing else, the description says it is magical. It seems that you are unwilling to give ground here and I certainly am unwilling to give ground in the absence of at least one example to support your interpretation of the rules, so it seems that we are done. Until there is some errata that offers additional clarity, I will DM my games using the Sage Advice rules. You and those who found their way onto my Ignore List are free to ignore them, but I am not seeing a reason why Sage Advice rules do not apply when they were given specifically for an example such as this.
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
Items invested with magic by an artificer's Magical Tinkering
Genie warlock's Genie's Vessel
Scribes wizard's Wizardly Quill
Items created or imbued with magic by any number of spells, such as cordon of arrows
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 see a lot of value in that but I don't really think it is equivalent to many other feats or an ASI. It is also a 1/day use so it becomes situational in terms of when it will be best to use it. So, yes it is a nice to have feature, but without including the spell slot for the casting it just doesn't have enough utility and value, in my opinion, to be worthwhile.