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 without 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.

 

[Mephista]

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.

Just out of curiosity, what spells would you suggest that an Alchemist and Cartographer put into the SSI?

Battlesmith gets Conjure Barrage. Armorer and Reanimator get Lightning Bolt. Artilerist gets Fireball. Do you consider an upcast Cure Wounds spell to be better than those three spells some subclasses already get? Or are you just opposed to 10 rounds of 6d8 healing?

The Mark of Making feat gives you Conjure Barrage as an Artificer spell, so do you consider that to be a problematic option for the Artificer?

 

[Blue]

Just out of curiosity, what spells would you suggest that an Alchemist and Cartographer put into the SSI?

Battlesmith gets Conjure Barrage. Armorer and Reanimator get Lightning Bolt. Artilerist gets Fireball. Do you consider an upcast Cure Wounds spell to be better than those three spells some subclasses already get? Or are you just opposed to 10 rounds of 6d8 healing?

The Mark of Making feat gives you Conjure Barrage as an Artificer spell, so do you consider that to be a problematic option for the Artificer?

My issue with what was being asked was that the power level to evaluate against was that as long as it did, in exact words, not make the class "far more powerful than any other class".

In what you are quoting from me, I've moved beyond talking about this particular implementation, but rather questioning the bar that was set for how to make rulings. Because if we're already ignoring what's written as long as it doesn't make the class "far more powerful than any other class", then you can use the same bar to, for example, justify using any spell from any list. It's not "far more powerful than any other class" to allow access to a single spell of 1st to 3rd level.

I'm not suggesting that -- I'm suggesting that the bar for evaluation of house rules to change a feature shouldn't be "does this break the game" which is also a direct quote of where the evaluation was.