Cartomancer states that "The card then immediately loses its magic." after the spell is expended. Only a consumable magic item can lose its magic. A non-magic item doesn't have any magic in the first place. Given that explicit statement in the feat, I think it is fairly clear that the card IS a magic item.
That is not how you create Magic Items. An item only becomes a Magic Item when a feature says it is a Magic Item. There are rules for creating a Magic Items and for this to be an exception, it must say that it creates a Magic Item. "It shares one statement that is similar to a feature of some Magic Items" is not sufficient.
Look at an Artificer's Spell-storing Item. Once you store a spell in the item, you can now use an action to produce the effect of the spell. It never uses the word "cast". We cannot say "well, casting a spell produces the effect of the spell so this must be casting the spell." It doesn't work that way.
The artificer spell storing item allows a creature to cast a spell from it using the Magic action. Though the wording in this case has the creature "produce the spell's effect" rather than "cast" it. There is also no explicit reference to it being a magic item (though it does contain spells and requires a Magic action to use - perhaps implying that it is a magic item) while in the case of Cartomancer, the card does explicitly become non-magical when the spell is expended.
No, the spell-storing item is not a Magic Item unless an infused/replicated item was used. The Cartomancer never says that card becomes magical and never says it becomes non-magical. It says it is imbued with a spell and loses its magic, which are different statements.
Another example of creating a magic item is the 2014 Devotion Paladin Sacred Weapon channel divinity that explicitly makes the weapon magical if it isn't already. This is another magic item without a rarity. Of course, 2024 rules removed this aspect since they removed the concept of magical vs non-magical damage and instead use damage types.
Exactly, it's not making it a +1 weapon, it's allowing it to bypass damage resistance. I mean effectively it's a +X weapon, but not technically. It says the weapon is magical, explicitly. Cartomancer never says the card is magical.
but the fact that Cartomancer doesn't assign a rarity to a consumable magic item that is created as a part of the feat does not indicate that the card is not a magic item - especially if it explicitly loses its magic after use.
Cartomancer needs to state that it is a magic item, not that it is not a magic item. When you cast Light on an object it has magic but is not a magic item. You can't cast Light on a slingstone and expect it to bypass damage resistance. It can be lost without the item ever being a Magic Item.
First, as background I only recently became aware of this feat (one of my players showed it to me), and I've spent the last several days reading up on all threads I can find on it because it is definitely, as many other users have pointed out, very poorly worded.
Second, the major distinction between the two interpretations is if this feat makes the card a magical object. Rules as written i don’t think its clear as many have pointed out it doesn’t say it makes the object magical many other feature which make an item magical say that, but there are 2 things I feel like I should point out first 2014 magical initiate didnt’ you you didnt need a spell slot it it said you used the feat to cast the spell this feat says you use the card to cast the spell. Other than the noun being different these are very similarly worded and the clarification we got on magic initiate says that it doesn’t take a slot. Second many people have said that the Word imbue appear nowhere in 5th editions rule and isn’t defined, but what’s interesting abou that is that is does appear in one rule in 5th edition that I can find and thats the 2014 artificers infuse item ability “You've gained the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions, turning those objects into magic items.” (emphasis mine) now in this instance it cleary states that imbuing the mundane item makes it a magic item and I will certainly allow that not saying that on Cartomancer leaves a fair interpretation that it doesn’t, but I don’t see how anyone can seriously argue that under the common language rules interpretation saying the card is a magic item is not based on valid reasoning pulled from rules sources specifically if we look to the rest of the 2014 artificer they have 3 different abilities which put magic on stuff and they all use different words for magical tinkering you “invest a spark of magic” and for spell storing item you “store a spell in an object” those 2 abilities don’t call the item a magic item, but they don’t use the word imbue
Third, that being said there are still 2 interpretations of this half of the feat. The first is a feature that grants you access to a once a day bonus action cast of an action spell which uses a slot when cast and has to be selected at the start of each day from your spell list. This has value to several build types bards sorcerers paladins and rangers get utility out of open access to their spell list for 1 spell per day (the rangers and paladins less due to their ability to change 1 spell per long rest rather than per level up) sorcerers and bards in particular can find value in having access to 3 4th level spell options at level 7 3 5th level options at 9 etc. paladin rangers bladesinger wizards and valor bards will probably find more use out of the bonus action conversion due to the extra attack ability. This feels like a good feat. not a feat every caster must or even should take, but I can see builds that would use it and cool combos that a reminiscent of metamagic adept for quicken spell (which also works out to 1 use per day but can be any spell you know instead of 1 spell from your list picked at the top of the day). In contrast to this we have a feat that grants once per day double cast. Also it gives you a bonus vancian spell slot of your highest level for a spell you didn’t even think you needed to learn until this morning. So at 5th level you’ve got 2 fireballs in a single round the only other way to really get that is sorcerer quicken spell and a wand so a feat that functions on its own as a once per day use of a powerful class feature plus a rare magic item. Notably the class feature in question is strong enough to be considered a solid feat all on its own (yeah metamagic adept does more than just quicken but so does cartomancer)and that’s just 3rd level spells it gets so much more powerful the top end being something like 2 turn 1 meteor swarms on your BBEG (and probably everybody else he brought to the fight). Honestly short of a spell scroll how many magic items cast 7th plus level spells, and this feat is fine because they exist so a sorcerer could do it if they get the right very rare or legendary item? If we are talking about spell scrolls I know 5e characters are galactically wealthy at high level, but how much money does a feat need to generate in magic consumables saved to move that needle? I know I said its a fair rules interpretation to say it makes a magic item (and I think it is one of the 2 fair interpretations), and maybe in 2014 rules when it didn’t grant nearly automatic double cast a vancian spell slot per day at your highest level wasn’t too crazy for a feat; but under 2024 rules if this feat makes the card a magic item this feat is BANANAS.
So in closing at my table I don’t think it will be a magic item and you will have to spend a spell slot when you cast the spell. I have heard several people say that this interpretation meansI want to take the fun away from my players, but I don’t quite simply none of us want the other people we’re playing with not to have fun. It has just been my experience that anything that lets 1 character at a table absolutely obliterate 1 encounter per day on the first round of combat is fun for that player, and maybe the first time they do it it’s cool for the rest of the table, and maybe if it comes from spell scrolls and quicken metamagic it’s fung because the table feel agency over the decision to invest that resource in that fight (last time my group used a necklace of fireballs to kill 3 wyverns it didn’t matter who threw the beads). But when the whomping of the century is 1 fight every day and it’s always the same character delivering said whomping it gets old. That’s why we strive for balance and it’s why if you think nerf this feat is anti fun I think you should consider all the players at your table that didn’t take an overpowered feat. and if you’re running a game where you full casters need double casting to keep up with the martials please share your secrets because if I can implement half of what you’ve done at your table I might have achieve martial caster balance after level 6 (THE DREAM).
K, the thing is is 1 player can obliterate 1 encounter per day at my table, I think my table would love it. Why? Cause I ACTUALLY use the encounter per day, not per session, guidelines. I dont hand out rests too often esp long rest ESP in dungeons, which is where a lot of the game is actually played. Hence, if they can use a resource that allows everyone else to reserve their resources, that is a win for the table cause it speeds up the game a little, and they are left better equipped to handle further challenges. So for my tables, go ahead and find all the broken nasty powerful shit you can. 1. I reward research and effort, and 2. You are going to want/need every advantage. I run the game in an old style, using older modules..which are fricken nasty and brutal. So this works. If you want the cozy, PC version that is standard with 5e adventures, where your session is 1 day and 1 day can only handle 1 encounter, then so be it. But hey, I dont sit at those tables, and that is totally cool. But to me nerfing stuff for the so called sake of balance is just silly cause its a target that you can never hit...hell if you wanted balance, you'd need to do a full rewrite on every martial adding tons of features and resources...which most dont do. I do, but less for balance, but more just because I simply think the martials are massively under tuned, and what I give doesnt fill the gap, but it does give more options that make sense to them. But again, my taste runs to high power high danger...total brutality.
And to be fair, I dont put stock in "RAI" interpretations. Hell, I dont care for Sage Advice either really. I am not a mind reader, I read the text. IF I am going to change something, its going to be because I think the mechanic or rule is stupid NOT because some other folks think they can read minds and tell me what the devs intended. If the devs want to say there is a RAI to rules, say the bag of rats type stuff, well, should have written stuff better now shouldnt they....its what they are literally being paid, as professionals, to do. Sure, this might seem a bit rigid and even dickish, dont care. Again, its not that I wont change or add or delete things...its just never going to be based on an RAI interpretation but on reading something and determining if I like it or dont. So people can argue with the approach I take, but the rules for Cartomancer are written in a very specific way, with no mention of spell slot in either imbuing the card or in the casting of the spell at the time. So I am happy to let the players, if they even come across it, have their fun.
Here's a neat tangent...there is Feat that says you get advantage on saving throw that can impose a condition. Yes, the earlier part of the feat talks about being pushed or made prone but the second half does NOT have those limitation, it just says, "a condition". It is, in my opinion, the BEST origin feat I have come across. It is a partnered content feat. So, I am sure, that some folks would say, hey they didnt mean ALL saves but that is how its written, and how its applied when you take it in DnD Beyond. Enjoy. (And yes, if you know you know, and if you dont this is homework! LOL)
hell if you wanted balance, you'd need to do a full rewrite on every martial adding tons of features and resources...which most dont do. I do, but less for balance, but more just because I simply think the martials are massively under tuned, and what I give doesnt fill the gap, but it does give more options that make sense to them.
Check out Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords for 3.5. I personally consider it a good book along those lines. The Crusader is, IMO, the best take on the Paladin.
And to be fair, I dont put stock in "RAI" interpretations. Hell, I dont care for Sage Advice either really.
Part of reading will always be reading the intent. There will always be scenarios where you can validly read a sentence multiple ways and part of reading that sentence, consciously or not, will be determining the intent. Sometimes it will be taking a sentence in the context it was printed in, but you always evaluate intent in the written word. This is particularly necessary in 5e compared to 3.x where the language was very precise for most books.
Just for reference when discussing rules in this forum:
IF I am going to change something, its going to be because I think the mechanic or rule is stupid NOT because some other folks think they can read minds and tell me what the devs intended. If the devs want to say there is a RAI to rules, say the bag of rats type stuff, well, should have written stuff better now shouldnt they....
My mantra is to always understand what the rules say before deciding to change something. Your table, your game. However, if you take the time to understand what the rules are saying, you can make deliberate changes with fewer unintended impacts. It's not meant as a barrier to changes; it's meant to improve the quality of the final result. It won't catch everything, but it helps.
Here's a neat tangent...there is Feat that says you get advantage on saving throw that can impose a condition. Yes, the earlier part of the feat talks about being pushed or made prone but the second half does NOT have those limitation, it just says, "a condition". It is, in my opinion, the BEST origin feat I have come across. It is a partnered content feat. So, I am sure, that some folks would say, hey they didnt mean ALL saves but that is how its written, and how its applied when you take it in DnD Beyond. Enjoy. (And yes, if you know you know, and if you dont this is homework! LOL)
Partnered content. Third party content has always been inconsistent in terms of quality and has no bearing on the design patterns of official D&D content.
I WAS going to argue the point about partnered content...and then realized you were correct..****y that partnered content seems to be far better than a lot if not most of the official content. Its more willing to make solid subclasses, races, features, feats. Look at Grim Hollow's Race build feature...it allows you to customize your race quite a bit. And the features are quite extensive and some are very powerful. So, we agree...comparing the two might well be unfair, but I would suggest the dev team look to these others specifically the Grim Hollow folks and start being bold. Because, seriously, they put out some great stuff. I was happy to see a caster monk subclass, but its a 1/3 caster (ya I know fight/rog got same treatment, but shouldnt) and its sorc not wizard...seems a shame on that front too and its capstone is crap and the 11th level feature is basically useless too. And lets not even mention the terrible design of the tattoo monk.
I WAS going to argue the point about partnered content...and then realized you were correct..****y that partnered content seems to be far better than a lot if not most of the official content. Its more willing to make solid subclasses, races, features, feats. Look at Grim Hollow's Race build feature...it allows you to customize your race quite a bit. And the features are quite extensive and some are very powerful. So, we agree...comparing the two might well be unfair, but I would suggest the dev team look to these others specifically the Grim Hollow folks and start being bold. Because, seriously, they put out some great stuff. I was happy to see a caster monk subclass, but its a 1/3 caster (ya I know fight/rog got same treatment, but shouldnt) and its sorc not wizard...seems a shame on that front too and its capstone is crap and the 11th level feature is basically useless too. And lets not even mention the terrible design of the tattoo monk.
Hard disagree about partnered content. In general, balance is subjective. There are some that believe +1 weapon is breaking game balance, where as others think +5 items are okay. IMO, really comes down to the DM and how good they are at building content for their game. In 2014 feats were optional (and not everyone used them). 2024 they are part of the base game. You have to have a base, somewhere to start. Each time you increase that starting point, things after have to exceed that starting point. If you don't, there is the vocal minority who will complain it is weak, not better than what is already available, and is crap comparted to what XYZ is putting out. And if you do, you will have a vocal minority (and oddly enough a fair number of the same people) complaining about the power creep.
You mention Grim Hollow, a solid setting, with a fair bit of power creep in it, mostly balanced within their content. Pulling it into other content could be problematic depending on the DM. A DM like yourself (at least from reading your commentary here) and me, power creep isn't much of a issue, especially when you use multiple combats per session/day to wear down players resources. For a DM that let players go all out and use up all their limited abilities, then recover them immediately by resting, that is more of an issue.
On your comment about RAI. I appreciate when the games developers chime in on rules questions. The commentary gives us insight and helps us understand their thought process behind the rules. And for a DM like me, I'll still rule as I see fit (example- 2014 See Invisible not removing the advantage/disadvantage is asinine). I wish the developers/leads would comment more or have a monthly Q&A. It is like the discussion here on Hidden Ace, there are solid points on each side. I find it amusing people tossing around RAW/RAI when it isn't necessarily RAW (perspective) or RAI (like they have a magical insight into what the rules team was thinking). While Hidden Ace will be run in my games based upon my thought process, and I appreciate the commentary from the current team about it is up to you on how you how play it at your table, it would be nice to have guidance if I ever run another AL type game. And, it would help interpret future content.
I WAS going to argue the point about partnered content...and then realized you were correct..****y that partnered content seems to be far better than a lot if not most of the official content.
That depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for more powerful options without consideration of balance within the context of existing options, third-party is where it's at. If you are looking for well play tested options that fit the tone and power level of official content, be wary of third-party content. Play testing and balance are a rarity among third party publishers and, even if they have the budget and experience with the system, may be going for a different tone than the base game.
I have never played it, but I would not expect Cthulhu by Torchlight to have casters casting spells without consequences. I would expect Chaosium or Paizo (especially Paizo who has been making D&D content for decades) to be capable of producing internally balanced content or even content balanced for the broader game (though broader Chaosium would likely still target more of a Ravenloft game rather than something else). I don't know Ghostfire Gaming from Uncle Rando's Book of 1001 Feats so I can't say one way or another about their products so I will have to let Zobar's assessment stand on its own.
So, we agree...comparing the two might well be unfair, but I would suggest the dev team look to these others specifically the Grim Hollow folks and start being bold.
Why would they look at a product that is making an experience different from D&D to create a D&D experience. Grim Hollow is here to say "play our game and you don't even have to learn new rules because it uses D&D as its base." It's here to ride on D&D's coattails instead of directly competing against it while WotC takes a commission. All of the partnered content is. If there is any quality assessment that WotC does before allowing someone in as partnered content, I am not aware of it, but since it is not as prolific as DM's Guild Content, I assume that there is something restricting publishers, whether it is a quality check or simply that it doesn't provide resources like DM's Guild content does.
I was happy to see a caster monk subclass, but its a 1/3 caster (ya I know fight/rog got same treatment, but shouldnt) and its sorc not wizard...seems a shame on that front too and its capstone is crap and the 11th level feature is basically useless too. And lets not even mention the terrible design of the tattoo monk.
An Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster Rogue have more non-casting abilities than a Paladin and Ranger. That is why they are 1/3rd casters and not 1/2 casters like the Paladin or Ranger. I have no idea what random Unearthed Arcana offerings have to do with this but that is also why a Mystic Warrior Monk will also be 1/3rd caster.
This post is about the Cartomancer Feat and what it says it does.
The Cartomancer feat does not say it creates a magic item.
The Cartomancer feat does say that you infuse an item with a spell in advance.
The Cartomancer feat does say that you choose from you spell list instead of spells prepared/known.
The Cartomancer feat does say that the spell has to have a casting time of 1 action.
The Cartomancer feat does say that you choose a spell of a level for which you have spell slots.
The Cartomancer feat does not say you cast the spell from the item.
The Cartomancer feat does say that you flourish the item and cast the spell.
The Cartomancer feat does say that you cast the spell as a Bonus Action.
The Cartomancer feat does not say that you cast it without a spell slot.
All the spellcasting rules apply as normal for the Cartomancer except what has been explicitly overridden. Therefore, Cartomancer:
allows you to select a spell and cast it later as Bonus Action.
The spell must have a casting time of an action.
The spell must be on your spell list.
The spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
The spell can be one do not normally have access to. You can use this to cast your favorite spell as a Bonus Action or to cast a spell you didn't want to prepare/know (particularly relevant for classes that only change spells when they go up a level). I think this is an aspect that makes the feat stronger than it is given credit for.
requires you to expend a spell slot when you cast it because it never overrides the default casting rules regarding spell slots.
does not allow you to cast it in any other way.
The spell is never prepared/known and so cannot be cast in any other way unless you prepare it or know it another way.
This includes ritually casting the spell, but in that case, a Wizard could ritually cast it if it is in their spell book.
is consistent with the behavior and balance of other, official D&D content.
That is not how you create Magic Items. An item only becomes a Magic Item when a feature says it is a Magic Item. There are rules for creating a Magic Items and for this to be an exception, it must say that it creates a Magic Item. "It shares one statement that is similar to a feature of some Magic Items" is not sufficient.
Look at an Artificer's Spell-storing Item. Once you store a spell in the item, you can now use an action to produce the effect of the spell. It never uses the word "cast". We cannot say "well, casting a spell produces the effect of the spell so this must be casting the spell." It doesn't work that way.
No, I believe there were early oversights, but by the time of the Cartomancer feat publication, I think that was no longer the case.
No, the spell-storing item is not a Magic Item unless an infused/replicated item was used. The Cartomancer never says that card becomes magical and never says it becomes non-magical. It says it is imbued with a spell and loses its magic, which are different statements.
Exactly, it's not making it a +1 weapon, it's allowing it to bypass damage resistance. I mean effectively it's a +X weapon, but not technically. It says the weapon is magical, explicitly. Cartomancer never says the card is magical.
Cartomancer needs to state that it is a magic item, not that it is not a magic item. When you cast Light on an object it has magic but is not a magic item. You can't cast Light on a slingstone and expect it to bypass damage resistance. It can be lost without the item ever being a Magic Item.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
First, as background I only recently became aware of this feat (one of my players showed it to me), and I've spent the last several days reading up on all threads I can find on it because it is definitely, as many other users have pointed out, very poorly worded.
Second, the major distinction between the two interpretations is if this feat makes the card a magical object. Rules as written i don’t think its clear as many have pointed out it doesn’t say it makes the object magical many other feature which make an item magical say that, but there are 2 things I feel like I should point out first 2014 magical initiate didnt’ you you didnt need a spell slot it it said you used the feat to cast the spell this feat says you use the card to cast the spell. Other than the noun being different these are very similarly worded and the clarification we got on magic initiate says that it doesn’t take a slot. Second many people have said that the Word imbue appear nowhere in 5th editions rule and isn’t defined, but what’s interesting abou that is that is does appear in one rule in 5th edition that I can find and thats the 2014 artificers infuse item ability “You've gained the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions, turning those objects into magic items.” (emphasis mine) now in this instance it cleary states that imbuing the mundane item makes it a magic item and I will certainly allow that not saying that on Cartomancer leaves a fair interpretation that it doesn’t, but I don’t see how anyone can seriously argue that under the common language rules interpretation saying the card is a magic item is not based on valid reasoning pulled from rules sources specifically if we look to the rest of the 2014 artificer they have 3 different abilities which put magic on stuff and they all use different words for magical tinkering you “invest a spark of magic” and for spell storing item you “store a spell in an object” those 2 abilities don’t call the item a magic item, but they don’t use the word imbue
Third, that being said there are still 2 interpretations of this half of the feat. The first is a feature that grants you access to a once a day bonus action cast of an action spell which uses a slot when cast and has to be selected at the start of each day from your spell list. This has value to several build types bards sorcerers paladins and rangers get utility out of open access to their spell list for 1 spell per day (the rangers and paladins less due to their ability to change 1 spell per long rest rather than per level up) sorcerers and bards in particular can find value in having access to 3 4th level spell options at level 7 3 5th level options at 9 etc. paladin rangers bladesinger wizards and valor bards will probably find more use out of the bonus action conversion due to the extra attack ability. This feels like a good feat. not a feat every caster must or even should take, but I can see builds that would use it and cool combos that a reminiscent of metamagic adept for quicken spell (which also works out to 1 use per day but can be any spell you know instead of 1 spell from your list picked at the top of the day). In contrast to this we have a feat that grants once per day double cast. Also it gives you a bonus vancian spell slot of your highest level for a spell you didn’t even think you needed to learn until this morning. So at 5th level you’ve got 2 fireballs in a single round the only other way to really get that is sorcerer quicken spell and a wand so a feat that functions on its own as a once per day use of a powerful class feature plus a rare magic item. Notably the class feature in question is strong enough to be considered a solid feat all on its own (yeah metamagic adept does more than just quicken but so does cartomancer)and that’s just 3rd level spells it gets so much more powerful the top end being something like 2 turn 1 meteor swarms on your BBEG (and probably everybody else he brought to the fight). Honestly short of a spell scroll how many magic items cast 7th plus level spells, and this feat is fine because they exist so a sorcerer could do it if they get the right very rare or legendary item? If we are talking about spell scrolls I know 5e characters are galactically wealthy at high level, but how much money does a feat need to generate in magic consumables saved to move that needle? I know I said its a fair rules interpretation to say it makes a magic item (and I think it is one of the 2 fair interpretations), and maybe in 2014 rules when it didn’t grant nearly automatic double cast a vancian spell slot per day at your highest level wasn’t too crazy for a feat; but under 2024 rules if this feat makes the card a magic item this feat is BANANAS.
So in closing at my table I don’t think it will be a magic item and you will have to spend a spell slot when you cast the spell. I have heard several people say that this interpretation meansI want to take the fun away from my players, but I don’t quite simply none of us want the other people we’re playing with not to have fun. It has just been my experience that anything that lets 1 character at a table absolutely obliterate 1 encounter per day on the first round of combat is fun for that player, and maybe the first time they do it it’s cool for the rest of the table, and maybe if it comes from spell scrolls and quicken metamagic it’s fung because the table feel agency over the decision to invest that resource in that fight (last time my group used a necklace of fireballs to kill 3 wyverns it didn’t matter who threw the beads). But when the whomping of the century is 1 fight every day and it’s always the same character delivering said whomping it gets old. That’s why we strive for balance and it’s why if you think nerf this feat is anti fun I think you should consider all the players at your table that didn’t take an overpowered feat. and if you’re running a game where you full casters need double casting to keep up with the martials please share your secrets because if I can implement half of what you’ve done at your table I might have achieve martial caster balance after level 6 (THE DREAM).
K, the thing is is 1 player can obliterate 1 encounter per day at my table, I think my table would love it. Why? Cause I ACTUALLY use the encounter per day, not per session, guidelines. I dont hand out rests too often esp long rest ESP in dungeons, which is where a lot of the game is actually played. Hence, if they can use a resource that allows everyone else to reserve their resources, that is a win for the table cause it speeds up the game a little, and they are left better equipped to handle further challenges. So for my tables, go ahead and find all the broken nasty powerful shit you can. 1. I reward research and effort, and 2. You are going to want/need every advantage. I run the game in an old style, using older modules..which are fricken nasty and brutal. So this works. If you want the cozy, PC version that is standard with 5e adventures, where your session is 1 day and 1 day can only handle 1 encounter, then so be it. But hey, I dont sit at those tables, and that is totally cool. But to me nerfing stuff for the so called sake of balance is just silly cause its a target that you can never hit...hell if you wanted balance, you'd need to do a full rewrite on every martial adding tons of features and resources...which most dont do. I do, but less for balance, but more just because I simply think the martials are massively under tuned, and what I give doesnt fill the gap, but it does give more options that make sense to them. But again, my taste runs to high power high danger...total brutality.
And to be fair, I dont put stock in "RAI" interpretations. Hell, I dont care for Sage Advice either really. I am not a mind reader, I read the text. IF I am going to change something, its going to be because I think the mechanic or rule is stupid NOT because some other folks think they can read minds and tell me what the devs intended. If the devs want to say there is a RAI to rules, say the bag of rats type stuff, well, should have written stuff better now shouldnt they....its what they are literally being paid, as professionals, to do. Sure, this might seem a bit rigid and even dickish, dont care. Again, its not that I wont change or add or delete things...its just never going to be based on an RAI interpretation but on reading something and determining if I like it or dont. So people can argue with the approach I take, but the rules for Cartomancer are written in a very specific way, with no mention of spell slot in either imbuing the card or in the casting of the spell at the time. So I am happy to let the players, if they even come across it, have their fun.
Here's a neat tangent...there is Feat that says you get advantage on saving throw that can impose a condition. Yes, the earlier part of the feat talks about being pushed or made prone but the second half does NOT have those limitation, it just says, "a condition". It is, in my opinion, the BEST origin feat I have come across. It is a partnered content feat. So, I am sure, that some folks would say, hey they didnt mean ALL saves but that is how its written, and how its applied when you take it in DnD Beyond. Enjoy. (And yes, if you know you know, and if you dont this is homework! LOL)
It's not nerfing a thing to have it not do something it never says it does.
Check out Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords for 3.5. I personally consider it a good book along those lines. The Crusader is, IMO, the best take on the Paladin.
Part of reading will always be reading the intent. There will always be scenarios where you can validly read a sentence multiple ways and part of reading that sentence, consciously or not, will be determining the intent. Sometimes it will be taking a sentence in the context it was printed in, but you always evaluate intent in the written word. This is particularly necessary in 5e compared to 3.x where the language was very precise for most books.
Just for reference when discussing rules in this forum:
So, Sage Advice is RAW for the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
My mantra is to always understand what the rules say before deciding to change something. Your table, your game. However, if you take the time to understand what the rules are saying, you can make deliberate changes with fewer unintended impacts. It's not meant as a barrier to changes; it's meant to improve the quality of the final result. It won't catch everything, but it helps.
Partnered content. Third party content has always been inconsistent in terms of quality and has no bearing on the design patterns of official D&D content.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I WAS going to argue the point about partnered content...and then realized you were correct..****y that partnered content seems to be far better than a lot if not most of the official content. Its more willing to make solid subclasses, races, features, feats. Look at Grim Hollow's Race build feature...it allows you to customize your race quite a bit. And the features are quite extensive and some are very powerful. So, we agree...comparing the two might well be unfair, but I would suggest the dev team look to these others specifically the Grim Hollow folks and start being bold. Because, seriously, they put out some great stuff. I was happy to see a caster monk subclass, but its a 1/3 caster (ya I know fight/rog got same treatment, but shouldnt) and its sorc not wizard...seems a shame on that front too and its capstone is crap and the 11th level feature is basically useless too. And lets not even mention the terrible design of the tattoo monk.
Hard disagree about partnered content. In general, balance is subjective. There are some that believe +1 weapon is breaking game balance, where as others think +5 items are okay. IMO, really comes down to the DM and how good they are at building content for their game. In 2014 feats were optional (and not everyone used them). 2024 they are part of the base game. You have to have a base, somewhere to start. Each time you increase that starting point, things after have to exceed that starting point. If you don't, there is the vocal minority who will complain it is weak, not better than what is already available, and is crap comparted to what XYZ is putting out. And if you do, you will have a vocal minority (and oddly enough a fair number of the same people) complaining about the power creep.
You mention Grim Hollow, a solid setting, with a fair bit of power creep in it, mostly balanced within their content. Pulling it into other content could be problematic depending on the DM. A DM like yourself (at least from reading your commentary here) and me, power creep isn't much of a issue, especially when you use multiple combats per session/day to wear down players resources. For a DM that let players go all out and use up all their limited abilities, then recover them immediately by resting, that is more of an issue.
On your comment about RAI. I appreciate when the games developers chime in on rules questions. The commentary gives us insight and helps us understand their thought process behind the rules. And for a DM like me, I'll still rule as I see fit (example- 2014 See Invisible not removing the advantage/disadvantage is asinine). I wish the developers/leads would comment more or have a monthly Q&A. It is like the discussion here on Hidden Ace, there are solid points on each side. I find it amusing people tossing around RAW/RAI when it isn't necessarily RAW (perspective) or RAI (like they have a magical insight into what the rules team was thinking). While Hidden Ace will be run in my games based upon my thought process, and I appreciate the commentary from the current team about it is up to you on how you how play it at your table, it would be nice to have guidance if I ever run another AL type game. And, it would help interpret future content.
That depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for more powerful options without consideration of balance within the context of existing options, third-party is where it's at. If you are looking for well play tested options that fit the tone and power level of official content, be wary of third-party content. Play testing and balance are a rarity among third party publishers and, even if they have the budget and experience with the system, may be going for a different tone than the base game.
I have never played it, but I would not expect Cthulhu by Torchlight to have casters casting spells without consequences. I would expect Chaosium or Paizo (especially Paizo who has been making D&D content for decades) to be capable of producing internally balanced content or even content balanced for the broader game (though broader Chaosium would likely still target more of a Ravenloft game rather than something else). I don't know Ghostfire Gaming from Uncle Rando's Book of 1001 Feats so I can't say one way or another about their products so I will have to let Zobar's assessment stand on its own.
Why would they look at a product that is making an experience different from D&D to create a D&D experience. Grim Hollow is here to say "play our game and you don't even have to learn new rules because it uses D&D as its base." It's here to ride on D&D's coattails instead of directly competing against it while WotC takes a commission. All of the partnered content is. If there is any quality assessment that WotC does before allowing someone in as partnered content, I am not aware of it, but since it is not as prolific as DM's Guild Content, I assume that there is something restricting publishers, whether it is a quality check or simply that it doesn't provide resources like DM's Guild content does.
An Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster Rogue have more non-casting abilities than a Paladin and Ranger. That is why they are 1/3rd casters and not 1/2 casters like the Paladin or Ranger. I have no idea what random Unearthed Arcana offerings have to do with this but that is also why a Mystic Warrior Monk will also be 1/3rd caster.
The Mystic Warrior discussion is here: Mystic subclass monk - Unearthed Arcana - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond
This post is about the Cartomancer Feat and what it says it does.
All the spellcasting rules apply as normal for the Cartomancer except what has been explicitly overridden. Therefore, Cartomancer:
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.