D&D 5E artificer initiate, fey touched and shadow touched vs magic initiate and spell slots

[auburn2]

In Tasha's artificer initiate, fey touched and shadow touched all give extra spells. They all also have a clause - "You can also cast the spell using any spell slots you have." or similar

This clause about using slots is not in the old magic initiate feat and it makes that feat significantly inferior to these. With the wording on the Tasha's feat you could get an off list spell (or two) for your caster and then cast it mutiple times a day.

Artificiar initiate esentially gives a caster one more prepared spell in addition to a stand alone casting.

Should the magic initiate feat be changed to allow this as well?

 

[Iry]

They really need to release a 5.1 Edition, where they go back and catch up all those old mechanics to current standards.

 

[Prebata]

I noticed that too when reading Tasha's list of feats.

However, from a balance perspective, if you consider to allow for Magic Initiates to use their spell slots for the chosen 1st-level spell, one must consider the ramifications of adding any one bard, cleric, druid, warlock, wizard, sorcerer spell to your class without multiclassing, since all the other feat choices binds the selection to either a couple of schools (illusion/necromancy, divination/enchantment or a class (artificer).

I am fine with that in my games. I think Magic Initiate has a more universal 'pick-a-spell' role than the other more themed feats.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In Tasha's artificer initiate, fey touched and shadow touched all give extra spells. They all also have a clause - "You can also cast the spell using any spell slots you have." or similar

This clause about using slots is not in the old magic initiate feat and it makes that feat significantly inferior to these. With the wording on the Tasha's feat you could get an off list spell (or two) for your caster and then cast it mutiple times a day.

Artificiar initiate esentially gives a caster one more prepared spell in addition to a stand alone casting.

Should the magic initiate feat be changed to allow this as well?

WotC are on record as saying Magic Initiate would work like Artificer Initiate if they where designing it today, but they are reluctant to go back and change the core rules at this time.

I houserule MI to work like AI.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC are on record as saying Magic Initiate would work like Artificer Initiate if they where designing it today, but they are reluctant to go back and change the core rules at this time.

I houserule MI to work like AI.

Yep, that's really all that needs to happen. If a table finds Magic Initiate to be underpowered, they can just adapt it to the Artificer Initiate standard themselves, WotC need not get involved at all. The same way that if a table feels like the Hunter subclass should get access to extra spells like some of the other Ranger subclasses now get, they can do that themselves too.

WotC knows as well as the rest of us do that even if they were to create a 5.1 to "clean up" all of these small bits that have seen evolution during the game's lifespan... the very next book after that would include a new type of rule or system or decision that would make the 5.1 version obsolete too. And thus where does it end? Heh heh... we know exactly where it ends... exactly as we had in 4E with its Errata document with pages and pages and pages of changes all in an effort to "balance" every single thing.

And people hated that.

So instead we have what we have... a series of original books that have sprouted some potential brambles and flaws depending on how into the weeds you go looking for them... but nothing nearly so egregious that it warrants a complete reprint. Especially considering most of the people who play the game aren't the ones who go tromping through those weeds looking for the brambles in the first place. And the ones that do? If they know enough to find the brambles, they know enough to do their own trimming and don't require WotC to be their landscaper.

 

[Helldritch]

I always played magic initiate that way and got flammed on this forum. But a learned spell is a learned spell I said. Even if the SA said otherwise. Now Tasha is siding with me but WotC would not errata the MI feat?

Why do you think I do not have SA and rule change errata in high esteem?

I firmly believe that the way Tasha wrote its feat should have been the get go from the start. No change for me in there. Retrofit the whole feats to adapt with Tasha's wording and here you go.

 

[Azzy]

Should the magic initiate feat be changed to allow this as well?

Yes.

In the latest Unearthed Arcana, even spells from races (like drow and tieflings) can be cast with slots, so I'd apply it to them as well.

I'm trying to compile a list of rules that Tasha's introduces that could (or should) be backward engineered to apply to older material. If you wish to help, please post away.

 

[auburn2]

I am fine with that in my games. I think Magic Initiate has a more universal 'pick-a-spell' role than the other more themed feats.

You are right, it does compared to fey touched or shadow touched. Shadow touched especially does not have a lot of good 1st-level options. Artificer initiate though has spells like absorb elements and caustic brew that will be go-to spells for a cleric or other spell user and that can be upcast.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

Considering they went the dingo with making Errata in prior books, it would seem like that such an Errata would get applied like duct tape gets applied to a tire.

 

[cbwjm]

I think magic initiate should be changed to allow it to be used with spell slots, I also think that spells you get from your race should have the same clause.