D&D 5E Magic Initiate Feat Debate!

[juggerulez]

Join the debate freely but argue only by strict ruleset interpretation, NO DM overruling. Thanks.

From the Player's Handbook:

Magic Initiate (p.168)
Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class' spell list.
In addition, choose one 1st level spell from that same list: you learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again.
Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends on the class you chose: CHA for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; WIS for cleric or druid; or INT for wizard.

From the Errata:

- Magic Initiate (p. 168). The feat’s limit on casting the 1st-level spell applies only to the casting given by the feat.
- Divine Smite (p. 85). You can expend any spell slot, not just a paladin spell slot.

So, given these Errata entries, I'm going to speculate as follows:

Magic Initiate provides you with 3 benefits:
1) TWO cantrips of the chosen class' spell list
2) ONE 1st level spell, of the same list, that you learn and use as your own known spell
3) ONE 1st level spell slot reserved to your chosen 1st level spell.

1) cantrips are innate spells, so you can always use them no matter what, providing you can fulfil the required criteria (e.g. free hand, material components, etc);
2) you can actually use it with your standard spell slots following the same rules of your spells, i.e. a paladin must prepare it (filling one of her CHA+half level prepared spell list) and can cast it any time she wants providing the spell slots. If she uses any spell slot higher that the 1st, the spell will be empowered accordingly (where applicable);
3) the 1st level spell slot can't be used to store/spend any different spell other than the one chosen with the feat. You CAN use this slot to do other things, i.e. a Paladin could spend it to use a 2d8 Divine Smite, but in regard of spell casting it must be used to cast the 1st level spell of choice and nothing else.

A word of advice.
The Magic Initiate Feat description doesn't specify that you gain an extra 1st level spell slot but it also doesn't specify it's an innate spellcasting feature, this is something you imply by following the game mechanics: there is nothing else in any ruleset book that allow you to cast a spell without discharging a spell slot. One can argue that innate spellcasting is "something that allow you to cast a spell without discharging a spell slot" but innate spellcasting specifies that it's an "innate spellcasting feature" in all the contexts it's mentioned.
By this logic, the only possible explanation is that the devs forgot to mention the presence of the spell slot, which is only implied by design.

Prove me wrong

Join the debate freely but argue only by strict ruleset interpretation, NO DM overruling. Thanks.

 

[PnPgamer]

Are you aware of this http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats/

 

[Li Shenron]

Well if you want strict rules interpretation, here it is:

3) ONE 1st level spell slot reserved to your chosen 1st level spell.

No. You are making this up, there is no slot mentioned in the feat. No slot granted by the feat, that can be used by other features that use spell slots.

there is nothing else in any ruleset book that allow you to cast a spell without discharging a spell slot.

It doesn't matter. Specific trumps general, so if the feat says you cast a spell once per long rest, that's all. There is nothing else implied.

 

[Neorealist]

I second the: "The feat grants the ability to cast the spell once per long rest. It does not grant an additional spell slot of any kind." approach.

Granting the ability cast a spell once a day normally would require a spell slot in which to cast it (and less relevantly, require casting ability in the form of the appropriate class levels as well), however the feat itself grants an explicit exception to this.

 

[juggerulez]

Are you aware of this http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats/

No I was not, thanks for the update

What doesn't convince me is that he's speaking about classes which have spell slots that can "pile up" with the feat. Paladins can't do so because magic initiate doesn't allow them to pick their class (I'm assuming this is due the fact that paladins, as well as sorcerers and rangers, don't "study" to get spellcasting capabilities). So it doesn't sound fair to these classes! Perhaps this just means that we can't mix spell slots with other spellcasting classes, but if it was so, why feel the urge to specify that you can spend other classes' spell slots to Divine Strike? (PHB Errata), thus can you or can you not mix your spellcasting abilities? to what extent? so if you can, why couldn't you spend the magic initiate slot?
If you indulge me for a moment, taking this feat sounds very much alike to multiclass to a "demo version" of a spellcasting class. so why wouldn't you be able to exploit this slot as you would with MC spell slots?

It doesn't feel right.

Still, your contribution felt enlightening, though i can't give you exp: the forum won't let me, don't ask me why

Anyhow do you know, by any chances, if what he writes in his articles is considered canon and/or an official ruling or is it just a personal opinion he provides to his readers?

Thanks!

Well if you want strict rules interpretation, here it is:
No. You are making this up, there is no slot mentioned in the feat. No slot granted by the feat, that can be used by other features that use spell slots.

I know I'm making it up! Mine is an interpretation of the ruling! Since there is nothing that specifies it, I've speculated it was as I've wrote because I'm assuming there is an oversight in how the rule is described.

The only two means to discharge a spell are from spell slots and innate spellcasting (given the whole of the manuals that are published at this given time) but while innate spellcasting is specified as a defined feature, Magic initiate doesn't confirm nor deny it's "traditional" spellcasting or innate one. One could argue that since paladins, rangers and sorcerers didn't make the list, magic initiate involves a "non-zero" quantity of study involved to learn how to cast those spells, thus the chances this feat is about innate spellcasting trims further.
Given this, one could speculate it's about traditional casting, and since traditional casting regulates its mechanics through the use of spell slots, the only possible explanation is that there *is* a spell slot involvement.

It doesn't matter. Specific trumps general, so if the feat says you cast a spell once per long rest, that's all. There is nothing else implied.

It doesn't say so.
The feat states that it allows you to cast a chosen 1st level spell once per long rest, amongst other things, which implies that you are provided the means do to so.
Since "the means to do so" are "traditional spellcasting" and "innate spellcasting" and provided that a) there is no mention of innate spellcasting in the feat description and b) given the possible explanation behind the fact that paladins, sorcerers and rangers are not listed amongst the classes you could choose with this feat - one could argue as follows:

1) there is a feat that overrides completely the fundamental mechanics of how spells work, introducing a 3rd way to cast spells from absolutely nowhere and for absolutely no consistent reason;
2) the feat was written poorly, which isn't even THAT incredible, since the manuals are filled with errors and oversights (e.g. spears are not polearms but quarterstaffs are, so if you wanna use Polearm Master with your spartan-like fighter, you will end up using a tipless spear instead);
3) originally there was a mention of a spell slot, but for avoiding exploits, such as Divine Strikes and Sorcery Point slot regeneration, it was removed from the description.

I'm completely cool with 2nd and 3rd option, especially the 3rd one since I could clearly see why it was removed.
I'm completely not cool with the 1st one, especially because of the Occam's Razor theory.

Granting the ability cast a spell once a day normally would require a spell slot in which to cast it (and less relevantly, require casting ability in the form of the appropriate class levels as well), however the feat itself grants an explicit exception to this.

I can agree with you about the feat granting an exception, but why didn't they feel right to integrate by mentioning a different way to provide the same benefits? was it an oversight? was it specified in a previous version that didn't make the cut on the prints? was it there and then removed to prevent exploitation? Aliens?

 

[Li Shenron]

I know I'm making it up! Mine is an interpretation of the ruling!

Heh, there's nothing wrong with that! But you were so imperious in your requirement for posters to stick to the RAW and "no DM overruling" that you didn't notice you were totally overruling yourself!

 

[CapnZapp]

Heh, there's nothing wrong with that! But you were so imperious in your requirement for posters to stick to the RAW and "no DM overruling" that you didn't notice you were totally overruling yourself!

This.

 

[Andor]

The only two means to discharge a spell are from spell slots and innate spellcasting

Incorrect. There is also Ritual Casting, Monk Ki casting, Racial spell casting (see drow), and use of a magic item at the very least. None of which use slots. In fact I don't see innate casting mentioned as a thing in the PHB.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, 5e isn't as internally consistent as 3e was, neither it was meant to be. For example if tomorrow they acreated a dragonlance mystic class it could have a turn undead feature that was very different from what clerics get. And this feat is in line with thing like Tiefling, Aasimar and Eladring that let you cast a spell without slots or even the warlock invocations that allow the casting of spells.

 

[juggerulez]

Heh, there's nothing wrong with that! But you were so imperious in your requirement for posters to stick to the RAW and "no DM overruling" that you didn't notice you were totally overruling yourself!

This.

I couldn't disagree more.

I'm not making any personal statement, I'm interpreting the rule as it is, by giving you a tangible explanation of why the rule is flawed while also providing you the means to help you understand my interpretation.

I'm not filling the gap by my own invent or my own convenience, I'm stating that there is a baseline that must be respected (which are the spellcasting mechanics) and the "3rd option" you suggested is inconsistent with the rest of the manuals, especially if based on the allegedly miswrote description itself, thus if we must stick to those two alternatives, while the innate spellcasting is specified as being "innate spellcasting" in any of the statements it appears, traditional spellcasting is more implicit, mentioning the involvement of spell slots to regulate the behaviour of spell casting.
SO if this is what was really meant to be the truth, why there is no mentioning of a spell slot on the feat description? perhaps it is a new form of "spell-like ability"? If so, why there is no mention whatsoever in any other context of such a thing?
Is it a form of "innate spell casting"? then why wasn't it specified since they felt the urge to specify it in any other situation?
Is it an oversight? If so, why didn't they fix it in the Errata? was it detected too late or was it meant to stay removed instead? to what purpose then? avoid exploitation?
Was it Aliens?

In conclusion: I've shown you that the presence of a spell slot (by mechanics) that was removed or unmentioned (by description) that is consistent with the rest of the RAW and that should be there, but it isn't and I'd love to understand why


"no DM overruling" is an expedient to avoid those comments such as "I will/won't allow it as DM" that completely miss the point of the debate since we're speaking about written rules and not personal opinions.