D&D 5E (2024) Artificer: Spell Storing Item?

[Zardnaar]

Upcasting explicitly requires a slot. The wording would need to be along the lines of "Pick an artificer spell you can cast with a level 1, 2, or 3 slot."

It's not. And without that, you can't have anything upcast.

Just like you can't pick an upcast spell as a spell known. Not that you wouldn't want to (though you wouldn't), but you can't.

Aware. At a glance thats where the confusion is coming from.

 

[Blue]

Aware. At a glance thats where the confusion is coming from.

What confusion?

PHB pg 236 is clear you need slots to cast at a higher level. This does not interact with slots. There is no way to "confuse" the word "slots" into the description of Spell Storing Item.

It does not say slots. There can't be legitimate confusion once this is realized.

EDIT: Missed that you said "at a glance". Yes, if someone is just quickly looking at it I can see that. But once it's pointed out that should clear it up that there is only one valid reading.

 

[Zardnaar]

What confusion?

PHB pg 236 is clear you need slots to cast at a higher level. This does not interact with slots. There is no way to "confuse" the word "slots" into the description of Spell Storing Item.

It does not say slots. There can't be legitimate confusion once this is realized.

How many people have a specific paragraph from the phb memorized word for word?

Youre focusing on being technically correct. All I'm saying thats where the confusion is coming from.

You cant see that? Well its on you.

 

[Blue]

How many people have a specific paragraph from the phb memorized word for word?

Youre focusing on being technically correct. All I'm saying thats where the confusion is coming from.

You cant see that? Well its on you.

Yeah, no need to turn this into a personal attack. I even was editing my comment about your "at a glance" but you got this in too quick.

Please debate the points at hand, not attack posters you don't agree with.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, no need to turn this into a personal attack. I even was editing my comment about your "at a glance" but you got this in too quick.

Please debate the points at hand, not attack posters you don't agree with.

You literally claimed you dont see where its coming from.

If you just read forge of the Artificer its not immediately obvious that is all.

Its not a casual friendly class.

 

[Blue]

You literally claimed you dont see where its coming from.

If you just read forge of the Artificer its not immediately obvious that is all.

Its not a casual friendly class.

I did literally claim I couldn't understand where it was coming from. The most basic part of upcasting is using a higher level slot. That's the entirety of it. It is impossible to know about upcasting without knowing that. So I could not understand how there was confusion. If you know of upcasting, it is clear it doesn't fit here. If you don't know about upcasting, then you don't know to try it here.

It's a perfectly casual friendly class, the idea of picking a spell of a particular level or less is inherent in every casting class. Saying that a casual player can only pick rogue, fighter, barbarian or monk because they can't understand the concept is an argument with any legs.

I made a comment where (a) if someone is talking about upcasting they know it's single most obvious part, and (b) that even casual players understand picking a spell of a particular level. Assuming just a degree of familiarity with the game to discuss the rules on a forum does not give you license to make personal attacks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, any rule interpretation that does not "break the game" by making a class "far more powerful than any other class" is okay?

Sorry, I disagree that's the proper bar to evaluate house rules with.

In this case, not being able to cast the lower level slots at higher level unnecessarily limits your choices. It feels bad to only use a low level spell instead of a high level spell.
If level 3 spells are fair game, why shouldn't ylu be able to use level 1 spells cast at 3rd level, when those spells are always less powerful.

It is about feel good, not power. And if feel good does not imbalance the game, why not allow it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, any rule interpretation that does not "break the game" by making a class "far more powerful than any other class" is okay?

Sorry, I disagree that's the proper bar to evaluate house rules with.

In situations where the wording is unclear - which is always going to occur, because English is an unclear language - then you have to ask what is the purpose of the rule? And the purpose of all D&D rules is to make the game fun.

Trying to pedantically parse the exact wording, when the person who wrote it clearly didn't consider it important, does not make the game fun. Extending that kind of thinking on a wider scale is why lawyers get paid such ridiculous amounts of money, and we still don't get any justice.