D&D 5E Magic Initiate Feat Debate!

[Sezarious]

With respect OP, I'm all about looking at RAW and RAI and seeing where the game can be stretched where it shouldn't. I'm primarily a DM though, so I don't actually try to exploit loopholes etc, but sometimes I read through and question certain rules for fun.

Looking at your post, I am going to ascertain you are a paladin player, or soon wish to be.

Let's look at the hypothetical benefits if we rule that a spell slot comes with the feat if you're a paladin:

-An extra 6 potential spell slots for a 20th level human paladin
-The ability to cast some non-paladin spells unconventionally (albeit each once per day, as per (post #2) PnPgamer's reference to sage advice (yeah, Official by the way)). Spells of use such as faerie fire, Goodberry and shield (on top of shield of faith, could be used in a pinch to save a paladin's butt) are the initial ones that pop into my head.
-Last, but not least, an extra 12d6, or 72 potential points of damage per day, 144 points if you're a paladin who likes to try and smite only on a crit.

No, I'm afraid that according to RAW, I cannot see any reference to you gaining a spell slot as a result of spending a feat. Gaining an extra spell slot for a feat was not a problem in 3.5, but that is not the case here.

To want to have a RAW discussion, then try to argue something based on inference is just not working for your argument.

They definitely did not leave out the spell slot thing by accident. Spell slots are gold, especially for a paladin. I've no doubt they would have discussed the possibility of a feat that grants a spell slot, but the feat is actually worded very carefully to prevent that.

Sorry mate. Like I said, I love looking for loopholes in the RAW.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The feat lets you cast the spell once per day. Period. You do not have a slot that you can use to fuel other things with. Additionally I ignore the sage advice ruling about knowing the spell to cast with your class slots. While it is true that classes use the wording "you learn" to indicate that you now know a new spell, the ruling is ignoring the part of the feat which specifies that you can only cast the spell at it's lowest level, and only once per long rest. If anything, strict reading would suggest that if you are an initiate in a spell and you have spell slots then it costs you a spell slot to cast the spell, you can only cast it at it's lowest level, and you can only do so once per day.

 

[juggerulez]

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.

you made a strong case, especially with the racial spell casting. thanks

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.

Why do you say it wasn't meant to be internally consistent?

With respect OP, I'm all about looking at RAW and RAI and seeing where the game can be stretched where it shouldn't. I'm primarily a DM though, so I don't actually try to exploit loopholes etc, but sometimes I read through and question certain rules for fun.

Looking at your post, I am going to ascertain you are a paladin player, or soon wish to be.

Yes i'm about to reroll paladin since we need a first liner able to heal because we don't have a proper first liner nor a proper healer... fellas wanted to pew pew, I ended up doing the sandbag

Let's look at the hypothetical benefits if we rule that a spell slot comes with the feat if you're a paladin:

-An extra 6 potential spell slots for a 20th level human paladin
-The ability to cast some non-paladin spells unconventionally (albeit each once per day, as per (post #2) PnPgamer's reference to sage advice (yeah, Official by the way)). Spells of use such as faerie fire, Goodberry and shield (on top of shield of faith, could be used in a pinch to save a paladin's butt) are the initial ones that pop into my head.
-Last, but not least, an extra 12d6, or 72 potential points of damage per day, 144 points if you're a paladin who likes to try and smite only on a crit.

a bit off my budget (I need other feats too :v ) but I see the point.

No, I'm afraid that according to RAW, I cannot see any reference to you gaining a spell slot as a result of spending a feat. Gaining an extra spell slot for a feat was not a problem in 3.5, but that is not the case here.
To want to have a RAW discussion, then try to argue something based on inference is just not working for your argument.

why inference is a bad thing? I don't get it
I don't care to be right, I care to be disproved: only by that one can change point of view.
Anyhow, I think I've made an oversight: "innate spellcasting" is worded as "uses per day" not "uses per long rest" which put me off track... perhaps Magic initiate *is* an innate spellcasting feature, just with a different wording... Perhaps MoonSong is correct about the whole internal consistency thing :|

They definitely did not leave out the spell slot thing by accident. Spell slots are gold, especially for a paladin. I've no doubt they would have discussed the possibility of a feat that grants a spell slot, but the feat is actually worded very carefully to prevent that.

I wouldn't be that sure. There are a lot of inconsistencies (just look at the whole armor class charade xD ) so I wouldn't be that surprised if they botched this one too
I know that spell slots are gold, that's why I was looking for a cheap way to stack them up while gaining freebyes and without sacrificing levels to MC...
seems I've failed on the effort, but overall the extra slot was just the topping: magic initiate is still a strong choice for me, even better than Sentinel if you could believe me xD

Sorry mate. Like I said, I love looking for loopholes in the RAW.

heh no harm done. It was worth a shot

 

[Sezarious]

I mean look, you may be right, and as a DM, I would actually consider allowing your interpretation partly because since 5e, I have developed a tendency to knock one of my players down to 0hp at least once per 2 games.

Yes, ultimately from an inference perspective, if your DM is happy to, you could interpret the rules your way.

Now just remember to consider the dual wielding with a shield debate and you'll be a powerhouse (and monster magnet).

 

[MoonSong]

Why do you say it wasn't meant to be internally consistent?

There is no standard wording for stuff... or detailed save rules or anything like that. BTW maybe you should try 3 levels of warlock or goign half and half with sorcerer. More slots to smite with and cure wounds + quicken or twin is pure win.

 

[SuperZero]

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.

There's also a number of Warlock Invocations (Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Beast Speech...), the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum, the Wizard's Signature Spell, and Magic Initiate, if not more I'm overlooking.
There's lots of ways to get the ability to cast certain spells without expending a spell slot.

 

[Jaelommiss]

There's also a number of Warlock Invocations (Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Beast Speech...), the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum, the Wizard's Signature Spell, and Magic Initiate, if not more I'm overlooking.
There's lots of ways to get the ability to cast certain spells without expending a spell slot.

Don't forget the Moon Druid's Thousand Forms at 14th level. Unlimited 2nd level Alter Self. It's a good thing that slot-less spellcasting doesn't grants slots for smiting or that would make for a powerful paladin. Any paladin with unlimited 3d8 smites would be terrifying.

 

[PnPgamer]

To the op about the article link:
Jeremy Crawford is supposed to be the sagemaster guy regarding rules, so that article is supposed to be somewhat official.

 

[aramis erak]

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

View attachment 71021

That's inconsistent with the Multiclass rules - which state that any slot not otherwise restricted can cast ANY spell known by the character.

 

[PnPgamer]

That's inconsistent with the Multiclass rules - which state that any slot not otherwise restricted can cast ANY spell known by the character.