Then the article mentions the restriction "Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes"
Sorry mate. Like I said, I'm all for challenging RAW vs RAI, but that seems a pretty clearly one way decision to me.
D&D 5E Magic Initiate Feat Debate!
- Thread starter juggerulez
- Start date
Then the article mentions the restriction "Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes"
Sorry mate. Like I said, I'm all for challenging RAW vs RAI, but that seems a pretty clearly one way decision to me.
Mercule
Adventurer
I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with what the developers/designers did. A couple of times in 5E, they've added really nice frameworks that seem to answer certain questions very well, then publish advice contrary to that. It feels like different folks built different parts of the system (probably true and expected), but they've never come to an internal concord on how to use them (which is unfortunate)..
In this case, I think Crawford (or whoever advised him) made a bad call. IMC, I explicitly overrule that entry and let people throw the bonus spell into their mix. A big reason for that is because I run an Eberron game, have based my home brewed Dragonmarks off the Magic Initiate feat, and like the way the Wizard and Arcane Trickster have played out with with my ruling: it allows a very flavorful sub-focus on the marks and houses without requiring a feat tree, prestige classes, or other heavy mechanics.
If they ever post a "design notes" on why they made that interpretation, I'd happily read it and consider changing my view. Otherwise, it gets filed (in my head) as a bad gut reaction or internal inconsistency that got floated to "official" and should be ignored.
For feat, I think most of the power gaming was intended or stamped out on purpose.
You only fully learn Magic Initiate spell for class to keep characters from easily snagging the best 1st level spells and dropping them in 9th level slots. Spell access for power is strictly class based.
The feat doesn't grant slots as slots are strictly based on class level.
DMs can change what he or she wants.
You only fully learn Magic Initiate spell for class to keep characters from easily snagging the best 1st level spells and dropping them in 9th level slots. Spell access for power is strictly class based.
The feat doesn't grant slots as slots are strictly based on class level.
DMs can change what he or she wants.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
There is also the transmuter's subclass feature to pick-up polymorph for free and their ability to cast it (on themselves) 1/rest without using a spell slot...
I think of the feat working similarly.
pdegan2814
First Post
Not even sure why this is a debate. Magic Initiate doesn't grant you an extra spell slot. It lets you cast a specific spell once per long rest, in the same way that many class & racial abilities allow character to cast specific spells a limited number of times without need of a spell slot. But it goes a step beyond many of those abilities. It also says you "learn" that spell, meaning it's added to your list of "known spells" that you can use your spell slots to cast, provided it's from a class list that you already have the ability to cast from. The feat does NOT change your allotment of spell slots in any way. As far as I can tell, any interpretation of the feat that imbues it with more power than that with regard to the 1st-level spell chosen is reading something into it that's simply not there.
Just a side comment about how much I really like this feat.
As a variant human, it gave me a way to play my fighter like an Eldritch Knight, even though I was only lvl 1.
And when I got high enough level to actually specialize as an EK, it let me feel like I was a 'powerful' Eldritch Knight thanks to the extra cantrips and additional spell known (I prefer added utility spells, but your mileage may vary)
I'd expect someone planning on rolling an Arcane Trickster would have a similar experience.
I think its a fun feat, that adds some great flavor onto a character. Its already pretty awesome, no need to use it for paladin smiting (or lets say... warlock higher slot casting. No slot involved, that doesn't work either).
Its a feat I'd definitely have on my short list for rolling up a Paladin.
Background: Acolyte, Magic Initiate: Cleric, and Paladin. Instant backstory. You entered the church, had planned on being a simple priest, but were called by your god to a higher path.
As a variant human, it gave me a way to play my fighter like an Eldritch Knight, even though I was only lvl 1.
And when I got high enough level to actually specialize as an EK, it let me feel like I was a 'powerful' Eldritch Knight thanks to the extra cantrips and additional spell known (I prefer added utility spells, but your mileage may vary)
I'd expect someone planning on rolling an Arcane Trickster would have a similar experience.
I think its a fun feat, that adds some great flavor onto a character. Its already pretty awesome, no need to use it for paladin smiting (or lets say... warlock higher slot casting. No slot involved, that doesn't work either).
Its a feat I'd definitely have on my short list for rolling up a Paladin.
Background: Acolyte, Magic Initiate: Cleric, and Paladin. Instant backstory. You entered the church, had planned on being a simple priest, but were called by your god to a higher path.
Not sure where some people are getting "6 extra paladin smites" from. You can only take a feat once, unless the feat says otherwise. Only feat in the PHB that can be taken more than once is Elemental Adept.
While it may not be RAW, I'm fine with it granting a free 1st level slot and spell known. You're still stuck with using the Spellcasting attribute of the class you take it from, which cuts down on the potential shenanigans. One possible extra 2d8 smite per day for Paladins doesn't really seem game-breaking to me.
So far I've only seen one player take the feat, a Light cleric who took MI: Druid for Goodberry, Shillelagh and Produce Flame.
While it may not be RAW, I'm fine with it granting a free 1st level slot and spell known. You're still stuck with using the Spellcasting attribute of the class you take it from, which cuts down on the potential shenanigans. One possible extra 2d8 smite per day for Paladins doesn't really seem game-breaking to me.
So far I've only seen one player take the feat, a Light cleric who took MI: Druid for Goodberry, Shillelagh and Produce Flame.
juggerulez
First Post
I think it's up to debate with your DM if you can take more than one instance of this feat, that's why they didn't specify that you can, as they did for elemental adept, nor they prevented you to do so by specifying you couldn't.
This is mostly a DM overruling. You could also deny it "because of reasons" as many DM do to curb min-maxers' enthusiasm
MI (druid) is the best choice a fighter or paladin could take as a sword and board duelist player.
It works in sinergy with Polearm Master, allowing you to pick a quarterstaff (1d6+str +2, bludgeoning damage, 1h, versatile) and making it a magic +0 warhammer with Shillelagh (1d8+str/wis +2, magic damage, 1h, versatile) with the increased benefit of the "back hand" as a Bonus Action (1d4+str +2, magic damage) and an Opportunity Attack on a Reaction taken as soon as someone lands in a square next to you.
As second pick you get Goodberries which provide nourishment and 10 extra life points (which is a full HD as such classes) that can also be used by paladins to stack berries during downtime (e.g. the day before leaving the city for a quest, or all the unused slots prior to a long rest) which mean that you can easily stack twice the wizard's HP in berries (as a level 5 paladin we're speaking about 70 of them).
Last but not least, you could pick another utility such as Guidance (1d4 extra points on skill checks) or Produce Flame if you lack a ranged option which could also spark a fire, or Thorn Whip if you want extra battle control.
I'm going with Guidance because I'm also the dungeoneer (the dude that attempts to dispatch traps and pick locks) and since I'm not wise nor dexterous, that 1d4 could really make a difference xD
I think this is really straightforward:
1. The ability says nothing about "slots".
2. There is nothing saying that everything has to be a "slot" or an innate spell casting ability.
3. You can cast the spell once per long rest. That's it.
You're trying to infer a deeper structure, but that is not how 5e does things. 5e tells you what you can do, and then you've been told and you can do that. That's it. The feat lets you cast that first level spell, and then you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again. That's it. It's not creating a "slot", because if it were it would have said something about slots.
1. The ability says nothing about "slots".
2. There is nothing saying that everything has to be a "slot" or an innate spell casting ability.
3. You can cast the spell once per long rest. That's it.
You're trying to infer a deeper structure, but that is not how 5e does things. 5e tells you what you can do, and then you've been told and you can do that. That's it. The feat lets you cast that first level spell, and then you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again. That's it. It's not creating a "slot", because if it were it would have said something about slots.
No, the feat section clearly states that a feat cannot be taken more than once unless it otherwise says so.
This is mostly a DM overruling. You could also deny it "because of reasons" as many DM do to curb min-maxers' enthusiasm
MI (druid) is the best choice a fighter or paladin could take as a sword and board duelist player.
It works in sinergy with Polearm Master, allowing you to pick a quarterstaff (1d6+str +2, bludgeoning damage, 1h, versatile) and making it a magic +0 warhammer with Shillelagh (1d8+str/wis +2, magic damage, 1h, versatile) with the increased benefit of the "back hand" as a Bonus Action (1d4+str +2, magic damage) and an Opportunity Attack on a Reaction taken as soon as someone lands in a square next to you.
I personally as DM wouldn't allow the butt-end attack with a quarterstaff used in one-hand, but I realize there's nothing against it in the rules. But if someone wants to spend two feats on that combo, fine.
Goodberry abuse can be done with a druid or druid multi-class and so isn't specifically a problem with this feat.
Similar Threads
