Why would you think that this was their intention, given that they didn't say it? They're really pretty good about saying "gives you a slot" when they mean it.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Magic Initiate Feat Debate!
- Thread starter juggerulez
- Start date
Why would you think that this was their intention, given that they didn't say it? They're really pretty good about saying "gives you a slot" when they mean it.
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
As other posters have pointed out, the feat doesn't give you any slots. The only way to get spell slots is by character level.
Sure there is. Racial magic, class powers, and magic items.
Having a wand of magic missiles lets you cast magic missile, but it doesn't give you any extra slots to use for Smite.
Being a tiefling lets you cast darkness and hellish rebuke, but it doesn't give you any extra slots to use for Smite.
Being a shadow monk lets you cast darkness, but it doesn't give you any extra slots to use for Smite.
Same for feats.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Two reasons. First, the concept of the feat is that you are dabbling in the basics of a class's spellcasting system, so the mechanics would naturally follow that. Second, feats are supposed to work for anyone who takes them, granting an ability if you don't have it, or augmenting it if you do. Treating the once per day casting as a spell slot does this.
The likely reason for how the feat is written is that it ignores the differences in spellcasting systems. Yes, it was written this way deliberately, but I don't think it accomplishes the intent behind the feat.
That is a lot of inference that I don't see much support for. Where is the "dabbling in the basics of a class's spellcasting system" claim coming from? I don't see anything saying that.
Treating the feat as doing exactly what it says, no more, no less, seems simpler.
I don't see any reason to think the feat has an intent other than letting you cast a first level spell once a day, and two cantrips at will.
pdegan2814
First Post
No, giving the player a free spell slot goes beyond the intent, as clearly shown by the original post which was looking for ways to use that imagined spell slot with abilities like Paladin smites. The existing rules clearly allow for the casting of spells without using a spell slot, so granting someone the ability to cast a spell does not require giving them a spell slot to do so.
Spartans and Grecian Oplites would beg to differ :v
well they were using spears, which are just tipped staves and perhaps quarterstaffs are unbalanced to the point that they weigh more on the ends to exploit kinetic force, but nothing prevents you to use the tip of the staff to "cave in" someone's stern while supporting/sliding the far end onto your shield, then simply rise the staff (that you're now holding at the other end or close by) and "pommel" strike someone in close quarters. A staff weights only 4 lbs, which is the same of most "non light" 1h weapons, so I really can't see why you should make an exception. Out of curiosity, did you counter balance the nerf in any way? did you gave it reach then? it's still sub par to other polearms but at least it isn't completely useless
Stabbing someone with a spear one-handed and causing injury vs jabbing them with a blunt pole (especially against someone wearing armor) hard enough to cause injury are going to require different levels of force. And getting force behind the blow on the short end of a 6' pole where all the weight is on the other end is even more difficult.
No. It's a simple weapon. It should be worse than martial polearms (which always require two hands) so I don't feel any need to counter the nerf.
Mercule
Adventurer
Granting a spell slot messes with the established way to blend multiple casting sources(i.e. multiclassing).
If a barbarian takes Magic Initiate, it's effectively a single spell slot, but it's not really useful as such because the Barbarian only has the one "slot". In this case, formally calling it a "slot" is pedantic. I really don't care because it has absolutely no impact on game play. If someone has a use case that disputes this -- without multi-classing -- I'm all ears.
Once you're dealing with a character that already has spell slots, it's a different story. Once you've got spells from two different classes, you ignore either class's specific slots and use the multi-classing table. You have two ways to rule on the Magic Initiate feat:
1) Per Crawford's statement that the feat is not intended to let you throw the gained spell into your general mix of slots. In this case, it's a completely separate ability and exists in a silo. The Wizard can't gain cure wounds this way and use one of his 3rd level slots to cast it. Nor can he use his 1st level slots to cast it multiple times in a day. Logic would indicate that the inverse is also true; the Wizard can't forego his use of cure wounds to eek out another magic missile. In this case, the spell has its own, completely separate, refresh mechanic. Based on that, it doesn't sound like a "slot", per say. I sure wouldn't let a Paladin take the Magic Initiate feat to gain an extra smite.
2) Ignore Crawford and treat the feat as though it actually represents some minor foray into one of the established ways of casting magic (i.e. mini-dipping into a class). In this case, use the established multi-classing rules. The above Wizard can still freely mingle his normal spells with cure wounds. Also, the Paladin who casts magic missile does so at the cost of a potential Smite. All other class slot progressions are ignored in favor of the multi-class progression. IMO, this is the most natural and logical interpretation of the rules. IME, it is also completely balanced and fair.
One note on option #2: If you're a single-classed caster that uses this feat to dip into another class, the progression is the same for full or half casters whether you look at your class or the multi-class table. For 1/3 casters (Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster), the progression is a bit wonky. Use the single-class progression. The feat is a mini-dip. Use the existing rules as a framework, not a straight jacket. If that doesn't make sense, then Crawford's advice is probably best for your group. You should also buy scissors with rounded tips.
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
If you're not a caster, simple, it lets you cast 2 cantrips and a Lvl 1 spell. Woot.
If you are a caster: two options.
One, you choose Initiate of a different class to your main class - same as above.
Two, you choose a Initiate of your own class: you learn an extra spell but do not add a spell slot.
So your number of spells known increases, but your spell slots remain the same. So you have a wee bit more to choose from but the same amount of actual spells to cast.
Plus, whatever else you spend your 1st level slots on, you always have your chosen Initiate spell to cast "for free".
Crawford's clarification was saying, you can use your initiate spell from your spell slot allocation as well because it's an extra Spell Known.
Lets say you have:
2 level 1 spell slots
2 cantrips
4 spells known
(away from books buts for the sake of the argument).
Taking Initiate in your main class gives you:
2 level 1 spell slots (no change)
4 cantrips
5 spells known (including the initiate spell)
Let's say your level 1 initiate spell is Create Internet Discussion. You can:
Cast two other spells plus a "free" casting of Create Internet Discussion, or
Cast Create Internet Discussion up to 3 times.
No?
If you are a caster: two options.
One, you choose Initiate of a different class to your main class - same as above.
Two, you choose a Initiate of your own class: you learn an extra spell but do not add a spell slot.
So your number of spells known increases, but your spell slots remain the same. So you have a wee bit more to choose from but the same amount of actual spells to cast.
Plus, whatever else you spend your 1st level slots on, you always have your chosen Initiate spell to cast "for free".
Crawford's clarification was saying, you can use your initiate spell from your spell slot allocation as well because it's an extra Spell Known.
Lets say you have:
2 level 1 spell slots
2 cantrips
4 spells known
(away from books buts for the sake of the argument).
Taking Initiate in your main class gives you:
2 level 1 spell slots (no change)
4 cantrips
5 spells known (including the initiate spell)
Let's say your level 1 initiate spell is Create Internet Discussion. You can:
Cast two other spells plus a "free" casting of Create Internet Discussion, or
Cast Create Internet Discussion up to 3 times.
No?
Last edited:
juggerulez
First Post
The really juicy thing I wanted to argue about is the presence of that spell slot that allowed my paladin to dish an extra DS instead of goodberries!
the point is:
while on downtime - you use all your spell slots to stack berries
while on adventures - you use your spell slots as you see fit, plus if you don't find yourself needing those extra 10 GB, you can get out of it an extra DS instead
apparently the consensus seems to be that you can't do this, which is fine, really: I don't care if I can squeeze out an extra DS, since what the feat provides me, it's more than bountiful already, it was just the topping, which if it isn't there, is not that big of a deal
then of course I can overrule it as DM as I see fit, but the debate was exclusively about the "lawyering" and not the ruling, if you catch my drift
the point is:
while on downtime - you use all your spell slots to stack berries
while on adventures - you use your spell slots as you see fit, plus if you don't find yourself needing those extra 10 GB, you can get out of it an extra DS instead
apparently the consensus seems to be that you can't do this, which is fine, really: I don't care if I can squeeze out an extra DS, since what the feat provides me, it's more than bountiful already, it was just the topping, which if it isn't there, is not that big of a deal
then of course I can overrule it as DM as I see fit, but the debate was exclusively about the "lawyering" and not the ruling, if you catch my drift
Similar Threads
