You’re assuming the only thing you need to write out at any point is the spell- logically if learning the spell for yourself requires experimentation you would need to document your experiments, ergo requiring additional ink. However, this is all irrelevant anyways. RAW and RAI both say there is no crunch of specific numbers hidden behind the totals for this; they’re simply flat rates that exist, and are only modified by features that expressly say they modify them. Wizardly Quill does not say that, so it does not. The endless ink is very clearly a ribbon, not a massive hack for spell scribing. Extrapolating an active feature from the negative space of what something doesn’t specifically prohibit is not how the rules work, you need outright proof positive.
I see your point and I appreciate the clarity in your reasoning. That said, I’m curious — if one of your players brought this question to your table and made a case based on subclass flavor, and the broader logic around how the subclass functions… how would you handle it?
Would you simply say “the cost stands as written” and leave it at that, or would you be open to adjusting it if the player made a compelling narrative and mechanical argument? Just genuinely interested in how you'd rule it in practice. And if you don't actually play as a DM, would you really make a case against a player that actually thinks the subclass works in the RAI interpretation I presented in my previous summary post?
If I was DM I would absolutely shoot this kind of exploit down. There objectively is not a compelling mechanical argument for this interpretation- the existence of ink is not mechanically relevant, the mechanic is you spend gold and time at X and Y rates to scribe a spell. The feature addresses Y, but it has absolutely no language addressing X as compared both to a later feature in the subclass and to the existing features that do clearly reduce the costs under certain circumstances.
Regarding the narrative, there’s two major points- firstly, the narrative does not exist to cover points like this- fixed costs like these are overt game mechanics dressed up with a bit of fluff. In the abstract worldbuilding sense, there’s no more narrative sense to a specific cost rate being applied to scribing spells than there is to Chromatic Orb requiring a diamond worth a fair bit of gold as the material component with no room for substitution while most other spells require fairly ordinary materials and a single focus can substitute for all of them. That’s just the way things are in D&D, ostensibly because magic just works that way but really because it’s mechanical throttling of performance.
Which segues into the second point- letting players bend or ignore core rules to this degree because they came up with an explanation that sounds good to them is not a genie I care to let out of the bottle at a table. It potentially opens the door to even more arguments for exploits down the line. “Can I try this?” with skills, spells, magic items, etc for a given obstacle or in a primarily cosmetic way is one thing, but rewriting one of the core rules on a permanent basis for one special case that- again- is not at all supported by the overt text of underlying paradigms of D&D is another.
I agree with ace. Rules do what they say. They do not imply, infer or open themselves to deductions. The money and time spent is there as a balancing mechanic. They’re not trying to track how much ink you use. There’s no in-game logic to the rules; there doesn’t have to be. It just is. To me it seems like people are kind of over-analyzing this to invent a rules exploit.
Scribes wizards can put a spell in their spellbook faster, because the subclass description says they can. It doesn’t say anything about cost, so the cost remains the same. Then at 10th level, they can make a scroll both faster and cheaper than normal, because that’s what the subclass says they can do.
I get where you’re coming from — and yes, I agree it could be interpreted as an exploit if someone tries to twist it for major advantage. But personally, I don’t see it as a particularly game-breaking one.
The only “advantage” would be saving some gold over time and gaining flexibility in dungeon scenarios — something that feels thematically appropriate for a subclass designed around transcription and magical study. So even if the intent was to leave the cost untouched, the fact that this doubt keeps surfacing suggests the design could’ve been more explicit. It’s not about exploiting a loophole — just about trying to understand how far the subclass flavor was meant to go mechanically.
Just because it’s not game breaking doesn’t mean it’s not an exploit. Yes, PCs usually have more money than they need, and saving a few gp isn’t likely to matter on the long run. Nor is paying the full cost likely to matter very much, as PCs often have more gold than they know what to do with. And also, wizards are the only class that really has to pay a gp cost to use one of their core class abilities, which is kind of strange.
But I disagree with the idea it “keeps surfacing” as an issue. It’s very, very clear and simple. The only reason I see it surfacing is this thread. It seems kind of strange to start a discussion then say, look, people are talking about it and use that as evidence that it’s unclear.
But the question I was trying to answer is does it cost less by RAW. It does not cost less by RAW. Anyone is free to ignore that, of course. And I agree it probably wouldn’t be a game-breaking house rule. I just think it’s important to clarify that it would be a house rule, (especially in the rules forum) so people don’t pester their DMs with “I saw someone on the internet say this so it must be true.”
If I was DM I would absolutely shoot this kind of exploit down. There objectively is not a compelling mechanical argument for this interpretation- the existence of ink is not mechanically relevant, the mechanic is you spend gold and time at X and Y rates to scribe a spell. The feature addresses Y, but it has absolutely no language addressing X as compared both to a later feature in the subclass and to the existing features that do clearly reduce the costs under certain circumstances.
Regarding the narrative, there’s two major points- firstly, the narrative does not exist to cover points like this- fixed costs like these are overt game mechanics dressed up with a bit of fluff. In the abstract worldbuilding sense, there’s no more narrative sense to a specific cost rate being applied to scribing spells than there is to Chromatic Orb requiring a diamond worth a fair bit of gold as the material component with no room for substitution while most other spells require fairly ordinary materials and a single focus can substitute for all of them. That’s just the way things are in D&D, ostensibly because magic just works that way but really because it’s mechanical throttling of performance.
Thank you for that. I completely understand why, it just makes sense. And I completely agree. That's the RAW interpretation and you clearly just showed that this is how you like to play D&D. Nothing wrong about that, I personally tend to prefer RAW over RAI too.
Which segues into the second point- letting players bend or ignore core rules to this degree because they came up with an explanation that sounds good to them is not a genie I care to let out of the bottle at a table. It potentially opens the door to even more arguments for exploits down the line. “Can I try this?” with skills, spells, magic items, etc for a given obstacle or in a primarily cosmetic way is one thing, but rewriting one of the core rules on a permanent basis for one special case that- again- is not at all supported by the overt text of underlying paradigms of D&D is another.
I understand your concern about maintaining consistency at the table and avoiding slippery slopes — truly, I do. But this isn’t about releasing some chaotic genie from a bottle. It’s about acknowledging that some mechanics, even in official materials, carry ambiguity that DMs and players have to address with logic, theme, and shared intent.
Take for example Speak with Animals. RAW, it only allows you to speak with Beasts. An owlbear, by creature type, is a monstrosity. So technically, RAW, you can’t talk to it with that spell. Yet in practice, RAI is overwhelmingly accepted: most DMs allow it, because the spirit of the spell and the flavor of the owlbear (a hybrid of owl and bear) make the ruling intuitive. There are countless threads, videos, and even official adventures where this is assumed.
So here’s the thing: if most players accept RAI when it comes to the owlbear and the Speak with Animals spell, where RAW is 100% clear, why reject it outright for Wizardly Quill, where the RAW is clearly incomplete and unclear?
This isn’t about players inventing exploits. It’s about navigating rules that are sometimes imprecise or inconsistently applied — and acknowledging that interpretation and table agreement are part of the system. I’m not the only one who sees ambiguity in the Scribes Wizard’s features — a quick search shows this topic has generated discussion for years.
So if RAW is your preference, that’s completely fine. But insisting that no ambiguity exists, and dismissing those who raise questions as looking for exploits, isn't constructive. I’m trying to build a thoughtful dialogue. I do respect one's opinions, I am free not to share them, but that doesn't mean my word counts more than yours and viceversa.
I really do not understand the fear that players might go to their DMs with questions like this — isn’t that a normal, healthy part of the game? Players bring up a point, the DM considers it, maybe says yes or no, and the story moves forward. What’s the harm in asking? Every doubt is valid, and ultimately it’s the DM’s ruling that decides. Opening a respectful discussion harms no one — but dismissing it outright with a “no, that’s just how it is” can actually do more damage to the spirit of collaborative storytelling. Respect is the basis, of course.
Once again, I do understand that following RAW, the cost still stands. Please, don't make me write this again, it's getting exhausting. I am just trying to consider everyone's opinion on the matter.
There is no right or wrong, we aren't D&D designers. We are DMs and players.
Just because it’s not game breaking doesn’t mean it’s not an exploit. Yes, PCs usually have more money than they need, and saving a few gp isn’t likely to matter on the long run. Nor is paying the full cost likely to matter very much, as PCs often have more gold than they know what to do with. And also, wizards are the only class that really has to pay a gp cost to use one of their core class abilities, which is kind of strange.
But I disagree with the idea it “keeps surfacing” as an issue. It’s very, very clear and simple. The only reason I see it surfacing is this thread. It seems kind of strange to start a discussion then say, look, people are talking about it and use that as evidence that it’s unclear.
But the question I was trying to answer is does it cost less by RAW. It does not cost less by RAW. Anyone is free to ignore that, of course. And I agree it probably wouldn’t be a game-breaking house rule. I just think it’s important to clarify that it would be a house rule, (especially in the rules forum) so people don’t pester their DMs with “I saw someone on the internet say this so it must be true.”
I’m just going to reiterate, the RAW is not unclear for the vast majority of players. There’s a small segment who seem to either just fixate on the concept of ink and ignore or believe it supersedes everything else about how the game works or are deliberately cherry picking which parts of the rules they acknowledge to justify their exploit. The RAW is clear- a feature does what it says it does and nothing more. The quill does not say it interacts with the gold cost, ergo it does not. This is not the new Hide rules where pretty much no one can actually wrap their head around RAW in a way that creates a rational outcome. An overwhelming majority of people who’ve participated in this thread have a consensus on the RAW and RAI here. If you prefer another interpretation that’s your prerogative, but insisting that the rules are ambiguous feels a lot like bad faith at this juncture.
I’m just going to reiterate, the RAW is not unclear for the vast majority of players. There’s a small segment who seem to either just fixate on the concept of ink and ignore or believe it supersedes everything else about how the game works or are deliberately cherry picking which parts of the rules they acknowledge to justify their exploit. The RAW is clear- a feature does what it says it does and nothing more. The quill does not say it interacts with the gold cost, ergo it does not. This is not the new Hide rules where pretty much no one can actually wrap their head around RAW in a way that creates a rational outcome. An overwhelming majority of people who’ve participated in this thread have a consensus on the RAW and RAI here. If you prefer another interpretation that’s your prerogative, but insisting that the rules are ambiguous feels a lot like bad faith at this juncture.
Hey, I think we’ve reached a point where this is no longer a productive discussion. I brought up a rule that players find ambiguous — and I did so in good faith, to explore the topic, not to “exploit” anything. You’ve made your stance very clear, and that’s fine. But at this point, it feels like your replies have shifted from discussion to condescension.
We agree on the RAW. Where we differ is interpretation, and that’s normal — it’s what the RAI discussion is for. Just because someone doesn’t share your view doesn’t mean they’re bending the rules or looking for loopholes.
That said, I won’t be responding to your posts anymore. I’m genuinely sorry if this thread upset you so much. We’re all here to play the same game. Let’s try not to turn rules debates into moral crusades.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I was DM I would absolutely shoot this kind of exploit down. There objectively is not a compelling mechanical argument for this interpretation- the existence of ink is not mechanically relevant, the mechanic is you spend gold and time at X and Y rates to scribe a spell. The feature addresses Y, but it has absolutely no language addressing X as compared both to a later feature in the subclass and to the existing features that do clearly reduce the costs under certain circumstances.
Regarding the narrative, there’s two major points- firstly, the narrative does not exist to cover points like this- fixed costs like these are overt game mechanics dressed up with a bit of fluff. In the abstract worldbuilding sense, there’s no more narrative sense to a specific cost rate being applied to scribing spells than there is to Chromatic Orb requiring a diamond worth a fair bit of gold as the material component with no room for substitution while most other spells require fairly ordinary materials and a single focus can substitute for all of them. That’s just the way things are in D&D, ostensibly because magic just works that way but really because it’s mechanical throttling of performance.
Which segues into the second point- letting players bend or ignore core rules to this degree because they came up with an explanation that sounds good to them is not a genie I care to let out of the bottle at a table. It potentially opens the door to even more arguments for exploits down the line. “Can I try this?” with skills, spells, magic items, etc for a given obstacle or in a primarily cosmetic way is one thing, but rewriting one of the core rules on a permanent basis for one special case that- again- is not at all supported by the overt text of underlying paradigms of D&D is another.
Just because it’s not game breaking doesn’t mean it’s not an exploit. Yes, PCs usually have more money than they need, and saving a few gp isn’t likely to matter on the long run. Nor is paying the full cost likely to matter very much, as PCs often have more gold than they know what to do with. And also, wizards are the only class that really has to pay a gp cost to use one of their core class abilities, which is kind of strange.
But I disagree with the idea it “keeps surfacing” as an issue. It’s very, very clear and simple. The only reason I see it surfacing is this thread. It seems kind of strange to start a discussion then say, look, people are talking about it and use that as evidence that it’s unclear.
But the question I was trying to answer is does it cost less by RAW. It does not cost less by RAW. Anyone is free to ignore that, of course. And I agree it probably wouldn’t be a game-breaking house rule. I just think it’s important to clarify that it would be a house rule, (especially in the rules forum) so people don’t pester their DMs with “I saw someone on the internet say this so it must be true.”
Thank you for that. I completely understand why, it just makes sense. And I completely agree. That's the RAW interpretation and you clearly just showed that this is how you like to play D&D. Nothing wrong about that, I personally tend to prefer RAW over RAI too.
I understand your concern about maintaining consistency at the table and avoiding slippery slopes — truly, I do. But this isn’t about releasing some chaotic genie from a bottle. It’s about acknowledging that some mechanics, even in official materials, carry ambiguity that DMs and players have to address with logic, theme, and shared intent.
Take for example Speak with Animals. RAW, it only allows you to speak with Beasts. An owlbear, by creature type, is a monstrosity. So technically, RAW, you can’t talk to it with that spell. Yet in practice, RAI is overwhelmingly accepted: most DMs allow it, because the spirit of the spell and the flavor of the owlbear (a hybrid of owl and bear) make the ruling intuitive. There are countless threads, videos, and even official adventures where this is assumed.
So here’s the thing: if most players accept RAI when it comes to the owlbear and the Speak with Animals spell, where RAW is 100% clear, why reject it outright for Wizardly Quill, where the RAW is clearly incomplete and unclear?
This isn’t about players inventing exploits. It’s about navigating rules that are sometimes imprecise or inconsistently applied — and acknowledging that interpretation and table agreement are part of the system. I’m not the only one who sees ambiguity in the Scribes Wizard’s features — a quick search shows this topic has generated discussion for years.
So if RAW is your preference, that’s completely fine. But insisting that no ambiguity exists, and dismissing those who raise questions as looking for exploits, isn't constructive. I’m trying to build a thoughtful dialogue. I do respect one's opinions, I am free not to share them, but that doesn't mean my word counts more than yours and viceversa.
I really do not understand the fear that players might go to their DMs with questions like this — isn’t that a normal, healthy part of the game? Players bring up a point, the DM considers it, maybe says yes or no, and the story moves forward. What’s the harm in asking? Every doubt is valid, and ultimately it’s the DM’s ruling that decides. Opening a respectful discussion harms no one — but dismissing it outright with a “no, that’s just how it is” can actually do more damage to the spirit of collaborative storytelling. Respect is the basis, of course.
Once again, I do understand that following RAW, the cost still stands. Please, don't make me write this again, it's getting exhausting. I am just trying to consider everyone's opinion on the matter.
There is no right or wrong, we aren't D&D designers. We are DMs and players.
Please, just do a quick Google search.
I’m just going to reiterate, the RAW is not unclear for the vast majority of players. There’s a small segment who seem to either just fixate on the concept of ink and ignore or believe it supersedes everything else about how the game works or are deliberately cherry picking which parts of the rules they acknowledge to justify their exploit. The RAW is clear- a feature does what it says it does and nothing more. The quill does not say it interacts with the gold cost, ergo it does not. This is not the new Hide rules where pretty much no one can actually wrap their head around RAW in a way that creates a rational outcome. An overwhelming majority of people who’ve participated in this thread have a consensus on the RAW and RAI here. If you prefer another interpretation that’s your prerogative, but insisting that the rules are ambiguous feels a lot like bad faith at this juncture.
Hey, I think we’ve reached a point where this is no longer a productive discussion. I brought up a rule that players find ambiguous — and I did so in good faith, to explore the topic, not to “exploit” anything. You’ve made your stance very clear, and that’s fine. But at this point, it feels like your replies have shifted from discussion to condescension.
We agree on the RAW. Where we differ is interpretation, and that’s normal — it’s what the RAI discussion is for. Just because someone doesn’t share your view doesn’t mean they’re bending the rules or looking for loopholes.
That said, I won’t be responding to your posts anymore. I’m genuinely sorry if this thread upset you so much.
We’re all here to play the same game. Let’s try not to turn rules debates into moral crusades.