Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="juggerulez" data-source="post: 6727890" data-attributes="member: 98250">No I was not, thanks for the update <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />What doesn't convince me is that he's speaking about classes which have spell slots that can "pile up" with the feat. Paladins can't do so because magic initiate doesn't allow them to pick their class (I'm assuming this is due the fact that paladins, as well as sorcerers and rangers, don't "study" to get spellcasting capabilities). So it doesn't sound fair to these classes! Perhaps this just means that we can't mix spell slots with other spellcasting classes, but if it was so, why feel the urge to specify that you can spend other classes' spell slots to Divine Strike? (PHB Errata), thus can you or can you not mix your spellcasting abilities? to what extent? so if you can, why couldn't you spend the magic initiate slot? If you indulge me for a moment, taking this feat sounds very much alike to multiclass to a "demo version" of a spellcasting class. so why wouldn't you be able to exploit this slot as you would with MC spell slots?It doesn't feel right.Still, your contribution felt enlightening, though i can't give you exp: the forum won't let me, don't ask me why <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Anyhow do you know, by any chances, if what he writes in his articles is considered canon and/or an official ruling or is it just a personal opinion he provides to his readers? Thanks! I know I'm making it up! Mine is an interpretation of the ruling! Since there is nothing that specifies it, I've speculated it was as I've wrote because I'm assuming there is an oversight in how the rule is described.The only two means to discharge a spell are from spell slots and innate spellcasting (given the whole of the manuals that are published at this given time) but while innate spellcasting is specified as a defined feature, Magic initiate doesn't confirm nor deny it's "traditional" spellcasting or innate one. One could argue that since paladins, rangers and sorcerers didn't make the list, magic initiate involves a "non-zero" quantity of study involved to learn how to cast those spells, thus the chances this feat is about innate spellcasting trims further.Given this, one could speculate it's about traditional casting, and since traditional casting regulates its mechanics through the use of spell slots, the only possible explanation is that there *is* a spell slot involvement.  It doesn't say so.The feat states that it allows you to cast a chosen 1st level spell once per long rest, amongst other things, which implies that you are provided the means do to so. Since "the means to do so" are "traditional spellcasting" and "innate spellcasting" and provided that a) there is no mention of innate spellcasting in the feat description and b) given the possible explanation behind the fact that paladins, sorcerers and rangers are not listed amongst the classes you could choose with this feat - one could argue as follows: 1) there is a feat that overrides completely the fundamental mechanics of how spells work, introducing a 3rd way to cast spells from absolutely nowhere and for absolutely no consistent reason;2) the feat was written poorly, which isn't even THAT incredible, since the manuals are filled with errors and oversights (e.g. spears are not polearms but quarterstaffs are, so if you wanna use Polearm Master with your spartan-like fighter, you will end up using a tipless spear instead);3) originally there was a mention of a spell slot, but for avoiding exploits, such as Divine Strikes and Sorcery Point slot regeneration, it was removed from the description.I'm completely cool with 2nd and 3rd option, especially the 3rd one since I could clearly see why it was removed. I'm completely not cool with the 1st one, especially because of the Occam's Razor theory. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I can agree with you about the feat granting an exception, but why didn't they feel right to integrate by mentioning a different way to provide the same benefits? was it an oversight? was it specified in a previous version that didn't make the cut on the prints? was it there and then removed to prevent exploitation? Aliens?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification