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.
The equivalent existing feat would be Metamagic Adept, which can also give you a 1/day Quicken, but with Cartomancer you trade the extra Metamagic options for prestidigitation
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)
All of these items would be detectable with Detect Magic - they are magic items.
They are absolutely not "magic items" as defined by the rules. They don't have rarities, don't have the standard magic item damage resistance, etc. Again, contrast artificer's Infuse Item feature -- which explicitly says "The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items" -- with Magical Tinkering, which has no such language
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)
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.
To point out: No feat in the game grants the ability to cast a high-leveled spell for free. Cartomancer, if it did, would be the lone exception. But when looking at the ability of Cartomancer against other feats (none of which grant a free casting of a spell higher than 2nd level) there's no way the RAI was to allow a second 9th-level spell in the day. That's Legendary item or Epic Boon territory.
If you don't find it worthwhile, don't take the feat on your character. That's what that really comes down to. With no free spell slot, this feat is well-balanced against others.
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.
To point out: No feat in the game grants the ability to cast a high-leveled spell for free. Cartomancer, if it did, would be the lone exception. But when looking at the ability of Cartomancer against other feats (none of which grant a free casting of a spell higher than 2nd level) there's no way the RAI was to allow a second 9th-level spell in the day. That's Legendary item or Epic Boon territory.
If you don't find it worthwhile, don't take the feat on your character. That's what that really comes down to. With no free spell slot, this feat is well-balanced against others.
This feat comes from The Book of Many Things, a supplement book entirely devoted to creating adventures linked to and expanding upon the Deck of Many Things. Do you think balance was the aim for this book? Any DM using this book will be having players pulling from that infamous deck. An additional 9th level spell is hardly going to be shifting balance in any alarming way when the Deck of Many Things is in play. Besides, by the time 9th level spells appear, balance is already long gone.
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.
To point out: No feat in the game grants the ability to cast a high-leveled spell for free. Cartomancer, if it did, would be the lone exception. But when looking at the ability of Cartomancer against other feats (none of which grant a free casting of a spell higher than 2nd level) there's no way the RAI was to allow a second 9th-level spell in the day. That's Legendary item or Epic Boon territory.
If you don't find it worthwhile, don't take the feat on your character. That's what that really comes down to. With no free spell slot, this feat is well-balanced against others.
This feat comes from The Book of Many Things, a supplement book entirely devoted to creating adventures linked to and expanding upon the Deck of Many Things. Do you think balance was the aim for this book? Any DM using this book will be having players pulling from that infamous deck. An additional 9th level spell is hardly going to be shifting balance in any alarming way when the Deck of Many Things is in play. Besides, by the time 9th level spells appear, balance is already long gone.
"A powerful legendary item in the same book means a low-level feature doesn't need to be balanced" is a take, that's for sure.
Let's take a look at other levels. At 9th level, under your interpretation, that's an extra 5th-level spell per day that's also Quickened and doesn't have to be one you know. 9th is easy to balance for, but the extra spell slot is a major resource to account for. And that's daily. 13th level is an extra 7th-level spell.
You're also making the assumption that every campaign that allows player features will also feature the most powerful item of the book. But the book shows other ways to utilize the Deck that aren't as an item the players get access to, plus it shows how to retune the deck (using only a portion of the 66 cards) to get the desired power level.
"A powerful legendary item in the same book means a low-level feature doesn't need to be balanced" is a take, that's for sure.
Let's take a look at other levels. At 9th level, under your interpretation, that's an extra 5th-level spell per day that's also Quickened and doesn't have to be one you know. 9th is easy to balance for, but the extra spell slot is a major resource to account for. And that's daily. 13th level is an extra 7th-level spell.
You're also making the assumption that every campaign that allows player features will also feature the most powerful item of the book. But the book shows other ways to utilize the Deck that aren't as an item the players get access to, plus it shows how to retune the deck (using only a portion of the 66 cards) to get the desired power level.
I merely said that balance does not appear to be the aim. I don't believe that this feature of the feat strongly impacts balance at low or medium levels. [REDACTED]
It offers one additional casting for only part of a day of adventuring. Since you have clearly not permitted my interpretation of the feature in your game and I have, I can say with full confidence that you are speaking from astounding levels of ignorance. In short, big deal. One extra casting of a spell on standby for the first 8 hours of the day is nothing at literally any level. By the time Wish is brought into the game, an extra 9th level spell is the least of a DM's worries. When you consider magical items that can give spell slots back, allow swapping of spells, and even to cast spells you do not have prepared, which are littered all over 5e, and that these do not have time limits placed upon them, I cannot see how this actually matters at all, but then again, I do not spend an inordinate amount of my time thinking of ways to limit my player's fun. To benefit from it fully, you need to predict what you will need. I have seen this feature go unused more times than it has been used. By the time you can benefit from high level spells, again, the balance of the game is already long gone for any number of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Cartomancer in any interpretation of the feat. Taking the least charitable interpretation of the feature only gives lip-service to balance and really is, at the end of the day, just an anti-player position.
While it is true that the book offers ways to utilize the deck without using the item, Deck of Many Things, I don't really think that helps your argument. The item itself is wildly unbalanced and it is available for use. If you are worried about balance, don't offer the deck or the feat, or use the supplementary information to retune the deck as you described. However, as a DM using all 5e content available, this feat, using my Sage Advice supported interpretation of the feat, is not unbalanced enough to matter. I guess the solution to have a balanced game is to be player-centered. It seems to work for my tables at least.
I think I am going to bow out here but some parting words for future readers: keep the player fun at the center of any rule that is open to interpretation. A DM gains nothing good from going out of their way to limit player fun. There will always be DMs who are afraid of changing meta and new content that empowers players. Silvery Barbs is a wonderful example of this and I suspect those who would limit the power of Cartomancer are also afraid to permit SB in their games. This feat does have some ambiguity to it, but if DMs have a player-centered bent, I strongly encourage you to read David42's analysis in this thread. You will almost certainly arrive at a fair and enjoyable conclusion about this feat.
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)
In short, big deal. One extra casting of a spell on standby for the first 8 hours of the day is nothing at literally any level.
An extra casting of fireball at 5th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
An extra casting of greater invisibility, as a bonus action no less, at 7th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
Just for reference :) ... neither of these would be a big deal in a game I was DMing. A necklace of fireballs can provide quite a few more fireballs. Letting a character have an action to cast a cantrip on the same turn they become invisible isn't a big deal either especially with the 1/day within the first 8 hours limitation.
In addition, the bonus action spell casting rule is still in effect when the card is used so it doesn't allow for multiple leveled spells in a turn, it only allows the character to cast one spell/day (only in the first 8 hours of the day) as a bonus action and so avoid losing their action on one turn - assuming that the fight occurs before late afternoon/evening .. if they are fighting at night, the odds are good the card already expired.
---------------
Anyway, since the wording of the feat is somewhat ambiguous, it is a DM call on how they want to run it and there is no wrong answer.
In short, big deal. One extra casting of a spell on standby for the first 8 hours of the day is nothing at literally any level.
An extra casting of fireball at 5th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
An extra casting of greater invisibility, as a bonus action no less, at 7th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
Just for reference :) ... neither of these would be a big deal in a game I was DMing. A necklace of fireballs can provide quite a few more fireballs. Letting a character have an action to cast a cantrip on the same turn they become invisible isn't a big deal either especially with the 1/day within the first 8 hours limitation.
I mean sure, if you're giving 5th-level parties necklaces of fireballs, their actual spell slots are pretty irrelevant, yeah
Also, greater invisibility is the one that doesn't get broken by attacking or casting a spell. Being able to do that twice in a day at 7th level rather than once is, in fact, a big deal
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 think I am going to bow out here but some parting words for future readers: keep the player fun at the center of any rule that is open to interpretation. A DM gains nothing good from going out of their way to limit player fun. There will always be DMs who are afraid of changing meta and new content that empowers players. Silvery Barbs is a wonderful example of this and I suspect those who would limit the power of Cartomancer are also afraid to permit SB in their games. This feat does have some ambiguity to it, but if DMs have a player-centered bent, I strongly encourage you to read David42's analysis in this thread. You will almost certainly arrive at a fair and enjoyable conclusion about this feat.
Just wanted to follow up a bit. I would have no problem with Cartomancer giving a spell slot ... personally, I don't think it is really much of a balance issue. However, I also don't allow Silvery Barbs in play - mostly because I think it detracts overall from the player fun at the table. The character with Silvery Barbs will think it is cool but the side effect is to mitigate those exciting moments when the bad guys score a crit or make that critical save. Keeping the bad guys alive adds tension to the scene and when the players have too many tools to mitigate it, the players overall tend to have less fun even if the one guy with Silvery Barbs enjoys it.
Compare Silvery Barbs to the rune knight Cloud rune ability that allows you to redirect an attack once/short rest. This allows the rune knight to take a crit by the bad guys or an attack that would take down one of their party members and redirect it against the opponents but it is limited to 1/rest (until high level when there are also typically more attacks in a round). This ability provides fun and excitement - the ability for the character to use a feature and make a significant difference adding narrative fun for everyone ... but imagine if they could do that every round of combat (for a typical combat that might run 3-5 rounds) ... it loses its special feeling ... which is where I think Silvery Barbs falls. Silvery Barbs mitigates some of the fun for everyone by preventing some of the cool/less probable events from happening without providing some narrative fun to replace it.
As a result, I have no problem with either interpretation of the Cartomancer feat but I won't allow Silvery Barbs in a game I am running. :)
Magic initiate is a feat which does not say it doesn't use a spell slot yet it doesn't.
The wording of the two is distinct. Magic Initiate says you cast using the feat. Cartomancer just says you cast.
It actual says "you cast the spell within." A card is an item, and it's imbued with a spell which makes it into a magic item. General rule for magic items is that they don't use a spell slot to cast the spell unless otherwise stated. It says at the end "The card then immediately loses its magic" which means it's a consumable magic item.
Magic initiate is a feat which does not say it doesn't use a spell slot yet it doesn't.
The wording of the two is distinct. Magic Initiate says you cast using the feat. Cartomancer just says you cast.
It actual says "you cast the spell within." A card is an item, and it's imbued with a spell which makes it into a magic item. General rule for magic items is that they don't use a spell slot to cast the spell unless otherwise stated. It says at the end "The card then immediately loses its magic" which means it's a consumable magic item.
This argument has already been made, read the entire thread.
The basic reasoning against: The feat doesn't state the card becomes a magic item, and therefore it doesn't follow the rules of magic items.
Magic initiate is a feat which does not say it doesn't use a spell slot yet it doesn't.
The wording of the two is distinct. Magic Initiate says you cast using the feat. Cartomancer just says you cast.
It actual says "you cast the spell within." A card is an item, and it's imbued with a spell which makes it into a magic item. General rule for magic items is that they don't use a spell slot to cast the spell unless otherwise stated. It says at the end "The card then immediately loses its magic" which means it's a consumable magic item.
This argument has already been made, read the entire thread.
The basic reasoning against: The feat doesn't state the card becomes a magic item, and therefore it doesn't follow the rules of magic items.
I've read it, and your summary isn't really missing anything from the argument. Essentially "it doesn't verbatim say it, therefore you're wrong." Not compelling. It works against you as well. You say it essentially shows you to temporarily learn the spell, but where did you get that from? Not the feat...
The issue is whether it uses components because it doesn't explicitly say it. The question then is which general rule does it follow. My argument is simple. A card is an item, the feat enables you to put magic in it, therefore it's a magical item. Your counter is "it doesn't use those exact words," but what is it otherwise? A common item imbued with magic that's nonmagical that loses its nonmagical magic after use? Does that actually make sense? Have you ever seen an effect that both teaches you a spell and makes you forget it after one use? Even runes from the rune shaper feat allow you to know the spell after use of the rune.
What is it if not a magic item? It's part of a feat, simple as that. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As for temporary access to the spell, you aren't learning the spell, you have a way to cast it once. That other feats and features don't grant that isn't a problem to be solved.
What is it if not a magic item? It's part of a feat, simple as that. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As for temporary access to the spell, you aren't learning the spell, you have a way to cast it once. That other feats and features don't grant that isn't a problem to be solved.
Wasn't your first response to me that it wasn't comparable to the magic initiate feat, because it doesn't say you cast it using the feat? And now you're saying it's not magic item because you cast it using the feat, not the item?
What is it if not a magic item? It's part of a feat, simple as that. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As for temporary access to the spell, you aren't learning the spell, you have a way to cast it once. That other feats and features don't grant that isn't a problem to be solved.
Wasn't your first response to me that it wasn't comparable to the Fey Touched feat, because it doesn't say you cast it using the feat? And now you're saying it's not magic item because you cast it using the feat, not the item?
The relevant point is that this is not a magic item, ergo whatever magic item rules say about this topic is irrelevant. It is a feat that for the purposes of flavor uses a trinket as a cosmetic element. The feat says “you can cast the spell” without any of the language found in feats that give non-slot casts, ergo by the RAW for spellcasting that means you need a slot.
What is it if not a magic item? It's part of a feat, simple as that. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As for temporary access to the spell, you aren't learning the spell, you have a way to cast it once. That other feats and features don't grant that isn't a problem to be solved.
Wasn't your first response to me that it wasn't comparable to the Fey Touched feat, because it doesn't say you cast it using the feat? And now you're saying it's not magic item because you cast it using the feat, not the item?
The relevant point is that this is not a magic item, ergo whatever magic item rules say about this topic is irrelevant. It is a feat that for the purposes of flavor uses a trinket as a cosmetic element. The feat says “you can cast the spell” without any of the language found in feats that give non-slot casts, ergo by the RAW for spellcasting that means you need a slot.
The problem is you could say the same for magic initiate. It says "you can cast the spell" not specifying components, yet it's clearly understood this doesn't use a spell slot.
Second, it doesn't just say you cast the spell. It says "you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within." It specified how the spell is cast, and this doesn't seem to be flavor since the card is first imbued, then used, then loses magic. That's materially relevant mechanics, not flavor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The equivalent existing feat would be Metamagic Adept, which can also give you a 1/day Quicken, but with Cartomancer you trade the extra Metamagic options for prestidigitation
They at least seem balanced against each other
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)
They are absolutely not "magic items" as defined by the rules. They don't have rarities, don't have the standard magic item damage resistance, etc. Again, contrast artificer's Infuse Item feature -- which explicitly says "The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items" -- with Magical Tinkering, which has no such language
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)
To point out: No feat in the game grants the ability to cast a high-leveled spell for free. Cartomancer, if it did, would be the lone exception. But when looking at the ability of Cartomancer against other feats (none of which grant a free casting of a spell higher than 2nd level) there's no way the RAI was to allow a second 9th-level spell in the day. That's Legendary item or Epic Boon territory.
If you don't find it worthwhile, don't take the feat on your character. That's what that really comes down to. With no free spell slot, this feat is well-balanced against others.
This feat comes from The Book of Many Things, a supplement book entirely devoted to creating adventures linked to and expanding upon the Deck of Many Things. Do you think balance was the aim for this book? Any DM using this book will be having players pulling from that infamous deck. An additional 9th level spell is hardly going to be shifting balance in any alarming way when the Deck of Many Things is in play. Besides, by the time 9th level spells appear, balance is already long gone.
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
"A powerful legendary item in the same book means a low-level feature doesn't need to be balanced" is a take, that's for sure.
Let's take a look at other levels. At 9th level, under your interpretation, that's an extra 5th-level spell per day that's also Quickened and doesn't have to be one you know. 9th is easy to balance for, but the extra spell slot is a major resource to account for. And that's daily. 13th level is an extra 7th-level spell.
You're also making the assumption that every campaign that allows player features will also feature the most powerful item of the book. But the book shows other ways to utilize the Deck that aren't as an item the players get access to, plus it shows how to retune the deck (using only a portion of the 66 cards) to get the desired power level.
I merely said that balance does not appear to be the aim. I don't believe that this feature of the feat strongly impacts balance at low or medium levels. [REDACTED]
It offers one additional casting for only part of a day of adventuring. Since you have clearly not permitted my interpretation of the feature in your game and I have, I can say with full confidence that you are speaking from astounding levels of ignorance. In short, big deal. One extra casting of a spell on standby for the first 8 hours of the day is nothing at literally any level. By the time Wish is brought into the game, an extra 9th level spell is the least of a DM's worries. When you consider magical items that can give spell slots back, allow swapping of spells, and even to cast spells you do not have prepared, which are littered all over 5e, and that these do not have time limits placed upon them, I cannot see how this actually matters at all, but then again, I do not spend an inordinate amount of my time thinking of ways to limit my player's fun. To benefit from it fully, you need to predict what you will need. I have seen this feature go unused more times than it has been used. By the time you can benefit from high level spells, again, the balance of the game is already long gone for any number of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Cartomancer in any interpretation of the feat. Taking the least charitable interpretation of the feature only gives lip-service to balance and really is, at the end of the day, just an anti-player position.
While it is true that the book offers ways to utilize the deck without using the item, Deck of Many Things, I don't really think that helps your argument. The item itself is wildly unbalanced and it is available for use. If you are worried about balance, don't offer the deck or the feat, or use the supplementary information to retune the deck as you described. However, as a DM using all 5e content available, this feat, using my Sage Advice supported interpretation of the feat, is not unbalanced enough to matter. I guess the solution to have a balanced game is to be player-centered. It seems to work for my tables at least.
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 think I am going to bow out here but some parting words for future readers: keep the player fun at the center of any rule that is open to interpretation. A DM gains nothing good from going out of their way to limit player fun. There will always be DMs who are afraid of changing meta and new content that empowers players. Silvery Barbs is a wonderful example of this and I suspect those who would limit the power of Cartomancer are also afraid to permit SB in their games. This feat does have some ambiguity to it, but if DMs have a player-centered bent, I strongly encourage you to read David42's analysis in this thread. You will almost certainly arrive at a fair and enjoyable conclusion about this feat.
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
An extra casting of fireball at 5th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
An extra casting of greater invisibility, as a bonus action no less, at 7th level seems like it would be a pretty big deal
Why are you comparing a feat to magic items?
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)
Magic initiate is a feat which does not say it doesn't use a spell slot yet it doesn't.
The wording of the two is distinct. Magic Initiate says you cast using the feat. Cartomancer just says you cast.
Just for reference :) ... neither of these would be a big deal in a game I was DMing. A necklace of fireballs can provide quite a few more fireballs. Letting a character have an action to cast a cantrip on the same turn they become invisible isn't a big deal either especially with the 1/day within the first 8 hours limitation.
In addition, the bonus action spell casting rule is still in effect when the card is used so it doesn't allow for multiple leveled spells in a turn, it only allows the character to cast one spell/day (only in the first 8 hours of the day) as a bonus action and so avoid losing their action on one turn - assuming that the fight occurs before late afternoon/evening .. if they are fighting at night, the odds are good the card already expired.
---------------
Anyway, since the wording of the feat is somewhat ambiguous, it is a DM call on how they want to run it and there is no wrong answer.
I mean sure, if you're giving 5th-level parties necklaces of fireballs, their actual spell slots are pretty irrelevant, yeah
Also, greater invisibility is the one that doesn't get broken by attacking or casting a spell. Being able to do that twice in a day at 7th level rather than once is, in fact, a big deal
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)
Just wanted to follow up a bit. I would have no problem with Cartomancer giving a spell slot ... personally, I don't think it is really much of a balance issue. However, I also don't allow Silvery Barbs in play - mostly because I think it detracts overall from the player fun at the table. The character with Silvery Barbs will think it is cool but the side effect is to mitigate those exciting moments when the bad guys score a crit or make that critical save. Keeping the bad guys alive adds tension to the scene and when the players have too many tools to mitigate it, the players overall tend to have less fun even if the one guy with Silvery Barbs enjoys it.
Compare Silvery Barbs to the rune knight Cloud rune ability that allows you to redirect an attack once/short rest. This allows the rune knight to take a crit by the bad guys or an attack that would take down one of their party members and redirect it against the opponents but it is limited to 1/rest (until high level when there are also typically more attacks in a round). This ability provides fun and excitement - the ability for the character to use a feature and make a significant difference adding narrative fun for everyone ... but imagine if they could do that every round of combat (for a typical combat that might run 3-5 rounds) ... it loses its special feeling ... which is where I think Silvery Barbs falls. Silvery Barbs mitigates some of the fun for everyone by preventing some of the cool/less probable events from happening without providing some narrative fun to replace it.
As a result, I have no problem with either interpretation of the Cartomancer feat but I won't allow Silvery Barbs in a game I am running. :)
It actual says "you cast the spell within." A card is an item, and it's imbued with a spell which makes it into a magic item. General rule for magic items is that they don't use a spell slot to cast the spell unless otherwise stated. It says at the end "The card then immediately loses its magic" which means it's a consumable magic item.
This argument has already been made, read the entire thread.
The basic reasoning against: The feat doesn't state the card becomes a magic item, and therefore it doesn't follow the rules of magic items.
I've read it, and your summary isn't really missing anything from the argument. Essentially "it doesn't verbatim say it, therefore you're wrong." Not compelling. It works against you as well. You say it essentially shows you to temporarily learn the spell, but where did you get that from? Not the feat...
The issue is whether it uses components because it doesn't explicitly say it. The question then is which general rule does it follow. My argument is simple. A card is an item, the feat enables you to put magic in it, therefore it's a magical item. Your counter is "it doesn't use those exact words," but what is it otherwise? A common item imbued with magic that's nonmagical that loses its nonmagical magic after use? Does that actually make sense? Have you ever seen an effect that both teaches you a spell and makes you forget it after one use? Even runes from the rune shaper feat allow you to know the spell after use of the rune.
What is it if not a magic item? It's part of a feat, simple as that. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As for temporary access to the spell, you aren't learning the spell, you have a way to cast it once. That other feats and features don't grant that isn't a problem to be solved.
Wasn't your first response to me that it wasn't comparable to the magic initiate feat, because it doesn't say you cast it using the feat? And now you're saying it's not magic item because you cast it using the feat, not the item?
The relevant point is that this is not a magic item, ergo whatever magic item rules say about this topic is irrelevant. It is a feat that for the purposes of flavor uses a trinket as a cosmetic element. The feat says “you can cast the spell” without any of the language found in feats that give non-slot casts, ergo by the RAW for spellcasting that means you need a slot.
The problem is you could say the same for magic initiate. It says "you can cast the spell" not specifying components, yet it's clearly understood this doesn't use a spell slot.
Second, it doesn't just say you cast the spell. It says "you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within." It specified how the spell is cast, and this doesn't seem to be flavor since the card is first imbued, then used, then loses magic. That's materially relevant mechanics, not flavor.