By RAW goodberry cannot heal. RAI and officials answers are more important than RAW

[Belier]

There is a huge problem per RAW wkth good berry spell. This is proof players and DM should not abdicate only per RAW from the book and should look for RAI and official answers and erratas.

transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V S M (a sprig of mistletoe)
Duration: Instantaneous
Classes: Druid, Ranger
Up to ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with magic for the duration. A creature can use its action to eat one berry. Eating a berry restores 1 hit point, and the berry provides enough nourishment to sustain a creature for one day.

The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell.

All right so let's go the the heart of the problem. There is a problem with goodberrie and it is the duration of instantaneous. It should have been written 24 hours as it is written the berries magic is potent for 24 hour.

The real problem ocure about this part of the goodberry text:

and are infused with magic for the duration.

Which I will remember you that it is a instantaneous duration. You wasted an action in the turn for it and it is another action to consume a berry that will do nothing for you per RAW.

So, looks like the errata is in the text any way stating the berries loes potency after 24 hours, which is in total contradiction with the spells duration and above text.

So, where I want to come about it? Read my first sentence again. I am not trying to say goodberries doesn't heal because it is obvious the spell is intended to heal.

[Armored Walrus]

Why go out of your way to obfuscate what's clear to literally everyone that plays the game? The berries appear instantaneously, they last 24 hours, they restore 1 hit point when eaten. Purposefully misinterpreting that and putting a clickbait title on it doesn't change how we all understand the spell to work.

[Feuerphoenix]

Instantaneous as duration states the effect takes place immediatly. Same goes for Find steed. The berries exist from the point of time where you cast the spell.

[Belier]

You understand it like I do, but even with a duration of 24 hours they would appear instantaneously just like a fog cloud that last for 1hour appears instantaneously.

As I said, RAW is full of mistakes/error. I just used goodberry text as an obvious proof RAW is not to be sacro/saint because the small mistake is obvious. I never stated that we don't understand goodberries clrrectly. But it is easy to understand that many player can have trouble to understand a spell like moonbeam at first glance and says the damage trigger twice in the same turn as an example.(when the beam appear, and at the start of the ennemy turn and when you move the beam, makingnit op)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Instantaneous as duration states the effect takes place immediatly. Same goes for Find steed. The berries exist from the point of time where you cast the spell.

And the berries don't go away after 24 hours, they're permanent. The magic does, so they're just berries.

General fact about 5e rules: if you're parsing at a phrase level and keyword hunting, you're doing it wrong. No sentence or phrase can be read in isolation without distorting the meaning. No phrase or sentence has independent effect unless it specifically says it does.

[sophontteks]

Nice try but you've misunderstood what instantanious means for spells. Its another way to say that the duration is indefinite. Specific beats general and sure enough it goes on to specify that the magic within the berries lasts 24 hours.

There is nothing wrong with this spell as its written. Its the rule lawyer way of writing in that the berries last forever and the magic lasts for 24 hours. They couldn't write duration 24 hours because the berry would then disappear. They start as indefinite and then add conditions.

[Belier]

Nice try but you've misunderstood what instantanious means for spells. Its another way to say that the duration is indefinite. Specific beats general and sure enough it goes on to specify that the magic within thw berries lasts 24 hours.

There is nothing wrong with this spell as its written. Its the rule lawyer way of writing in that the berries last forever and the magic lasts for 24 hours. They couldn't write duration 24 hours because the berry would then disappear. They start as indefinite and then add conditions.

Even if you write 24 hour duration and at bottom they lose potency after the duration, it would mean the berries stay after the duration.

Crawford even stated disciple of life works woth goodberry which means the spell is still in its duration and that it is not instantaneous(because disciple of life state when you use a spell and you cannot use a spell the next turn if it is instantaneous).

And the berries don't go away after 24 hours, they're permanent. The magic does, so they're just berries.

General fact about 5e rules: if you're parsing at a phrase level and keyword hunting, you're doing it wrong. No sentence or phrase can be read in isolation without distorting the meaning. No phrase or sentence has independent effect unless it specifically says it does.

Look at the moonbeam example, with it's wording you can trigger the spell twice in the same turn and when you move it because No phrase or sentence says it cannot do it.

[LtPowers]

The "infused with magic" part is flavor text, though it's poorly written flavor text and should not have implied that the berries are magical. (Many spells are like this; you can ignore the first sentence or two when looking to adjudicate rules.) I suggest that the instantaneous duration is correct. If the duration was 24 hours, the berries would be dispellable and fail to work in anti-magic fields. As written, goodberries work fine in anti-magic fields.


Powers &8^]

[Armored Walrus]

If the point of this thread was to point out that there are areas of 5e's rules that are unclear/vague/rely on DM interpretation then I think you picked a bad example of your point. The game's been out 4 years, until your post, I had never seen anyone misinterpret what the spell does, and I've run and played in many games, and read nearly every post ever posted on this board and a few others. There's only a problem with the wording of this spell if you are looking for a reason to misinterpret it.

Your other example, Moonbeam, I think is a better example, and I've seen that one misunderstood by many players. Still, your point is "RAW only goes so far and DM's/Players need to apply some judgement and common sense when interpreting how the rules apply" Well, I think we all already knew that. It's kind of the point of 5e's design.

[Belier]

The "infused with magic" part is flavor text, though it's poorly written flavor text and should not have implied that the berries are magical. (Many spells are like this; you can ignore the first sentence or two when looking to adjudicate rules.) I suggest that the instantaneous duration is correct. If the duration was 24 hours, the berries would be dispellable and fail to work in anti-magic fields. As written, goodberries work fine in anti-magic fields.


Powers &8^]

I think dispel magic should work there even if I think nobody would dispel magic on berries.


If the point of this thread was to point out that there are areas of 5e's rules that are unclear/vague/rely on DM interpretation then I think you picked a bad example of your point. The game's been out 4 years, until your post, I had never seen anyone misinterpret what the spell does, and I've run and played in many games, and read nearly every post ever posted on this board and a few others. There's only a problem with the wording of this spell if you are looking for a reason to misinterpret it.

Your other example, Moonbeam, I think is a better example, and I've seen that one misunderstood by many players. Still, your point is "RAW only goes so far and DM's/Players need to apply some judgement and common sense when interpreting how the rules apply" Well, I think we all already knew that. It's kind of the point of 5e's design.

The reason players don't ask about it is because the spell has it's own fix in the last line. It still doesnt remove the contradiction on the duration but it is easy enaugh to grasp how it works to not abord it in the forums. However when you want to see it's interaction with disciple of life, anyone might argue the feature does not work because the spell is not in duration anymore being instantaneous. However, disciple of life works with it.

[sophontteks]

Even if you write 24 hour duration and at bottom they lose potency after the duration, it would mean the berries stay after the duration.

Crawford even stated disciple of life works woth goodberry which means the spell is still in its duration and that it is not instantaneous(because disciple of life state when you use a spell and you cannot use a spell the next turn if it is instantaneous).

If the duration was 24 hours then the effects would go away after the duration ended. They don't. Its much more clear to specify what effects end.

[LtPowers]

I think dispel magic should work there even if I think nobody would dispel magic on berries.

Not with an instantaneous duration, it doesn't. What are you dispelling?


Powers &8^]

[Belier]

Not with an instantaneous duration, it doesn't. What are you dispelling?


Powers &8^]

24 hours magic infused potency that works with disciple of life that states"when you use a spell"(meaning the spell still exist)?

[Tanarii]

If the duration was 24 hours then the effects would go away after the duration ended. They don't. Its much more clear to specify what effects end.
This sounds right to me. The healing itself is probably why they marked the spell instantaneous. Clearly the magic in the berries is not instantaneous. It should be possible to dispel the magic in the berries.

This spell is definitely an edge case: conjure magical thing/energies that lasts 24 hours, magical thing when used does instantaneous magic.

[Belier]

This sounds right to me. The healing itself is probably why they marked the spell instantaneous. Clearly the magic in the berries is not instantaneous. It should be possible to dispel the magic in the berries.

This spell is definitely an edge case: conjure magical thing/energies that lasts 24 hours, magical thing when used does instantaneous magic.

Are you meaning that the instantaneous part of the spell takes effect when you take an action to eat a berrie, you get healed instantaneouly? Because if that is what you mean that they intended, with a 24 hour duration a player might argue that you regain health later right?

Never looked at it this way but still, it is obvious the heal is instantaneous and I'd rather see a 24 hours duration. I don't like reading contradiction in a text even if the spell is easy to understand.

I think however you scored a big one on their intend for instantaneous wording.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Look at the moonbeam example, with it's wording you can trigger the spell twice in the same turn and when you move it because No phrase or sentence says it cannot do it.

The bold part is a red flag for rules misinterpretation. Abilities and spells give explicit grants of power; they're exceptions. Spells do exactly what they say; nothing more, nothing less. The idea that "it doesn't say I can't" is a bad argument.

As to moonbeam, the relevant verbiage is:


When a creature enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it is engulfed in ghostly flames that cause searing pain, and it must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 2d10 radiant damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

You can't trigger both clauses of the first sentence on a single turn--it either started its turn there (in which case you can't move it that turn, because it's not your turn and it's already been in the area, so the first clause has already failed its trigger) or it enters the area for the first time on a turn (which can only trigger once. The two clauses are mutually exclusive.

[Belier]

The bold part is a red flag for rules misinterpretation. Abilities and spells give explicit grants of power; they're exceptions. Spells do exactly what they say; nothing more, nothing less. The idea that "it doesn't say I can't" is a bad argument.

As to moonbeam, the relevant verbiage is:



You can't trigger both clauses of the first sentence on a single turn--it either started its turn there (in which case you can't move it that turn, because it's not your turn and it's already been in the area, so the first clause has already failed its trigger) or it enters the area for the first time on a turn (which can only trigger once. The two clauses are mutually exclusive.

That is correct. Wording is clear enough to not allow 2 trigger on a turn. I was a bit lenient on this part. However, for many players it is still not going to be ovious what happen if you move the beam upon them or if the damage is instantaneous or at the beggining of their turn.

[smcmike]

I agree both that the wording is weird, and that the lesson here is that no one should care about weird wording when the intent is clear.

On the other hand, I cannot help myself, and have to laugh about someone bringing this level of attention to language details, yet including at least one strange typo in every single post. (I mean this in good fun, not as a personal attack - most of my posts have typos too, and by commenting on it I’m sure I’ve cursed myself to at least on in this post):


sacro/saint . . .



This is proof players and DM should not abdicateonly per RAW from the book and should look for RAI and official answers and erratas.



Look at the moonbeam example, with it's wording



The reason players don't ask about it is because the spell has it's own fix
enaugh
abord
it's


a berrie .

[Tanarii]

and by commenting on it I’m sure I’ve cursed myself to at least on in this post):
*one
Well player sir 😂

[Belier]

I agree both that the wording is weird, and that the lesson here is that no one should care about weird wording when the intent is clear.

On the other hand, I cannot help myself, and have to laugh about someone bringing this level of attention to language details, yet including at least one strange typo in every single post. (I mean this in good fun, not as a personal attack - most of my posts have typos too, and by commenting on it I’m sure I’ve cursed myself to at least on in this post):

If everything I said was official I would make sure there was no typo and with english not being my main language, it would probly take me way more time to verify that everything I write is fine than I do typing here with my fat fingers on my small phone keyboard.

I agree thought it looks funny that I make
All those typos. I could at least double check better what I write before writing even if it is not official, I admit being lenient on this part.

[smcmike]

*one
Well player sir 😂

What’s funny is that this was unintentional. I just know myself.

[Requilac]

Your arguement makes sense to a certain degree, but there is one thing you failed to recognize. The duration for the spell is instantaneous, but the berries themselves are not the spell. The spell creates an item, the item isn’t the spell. Here is what the PHB says on spell durations

“A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed. ”

When you cast the goodberry spell, the spell itself lasts for only a moment before fading. This doesn’t mean that the berry which the spell creates lasts only a moment before fading/losing its magical power. The two are seperate thing which just happen to share the same name.

This same logic applies to fabricate, create food and water which also all have an instanteous duration.

[Belier]

Your arguement makes sense to a certain degree, but there is one thing you failed to recognize. The duration for the spell is instantaneous, but the berries themselves are not the spell. The spell creates an item, the item isn’t the spell. Here is what the PHB says on spell durations

“A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed. ”

When you cast the goodberry spell, the spell itself lasts for only a moment before fading. This doesn’t mean that the berry which the spell creates lasts only a moment before fading/losing its magical power. The two are seperate thing which just happen to share the same name.

This same logic applies to fabricate, create food and water which also all have an instanteous duration.

But create or destroy water create or destroy mundane water. Once it is cast, nothing magical is left about it so there can only be an instantaneous duration.

We could also look at shadow blade, which create a magical blade for 1 minute and can be dispelled. This spell is closer to goodberry than create or destroy water in my opinion except for the concentration part.

You could dispell a shadow blade.
I know it is a weird comparaison, shadow blade being an illusion spell and having a different purpose.

[JackPhoenix]

Just because you can't read the RAW doesn't mean RAW doesn't work.

Alternatively, just ignore the troll.

[Belier]

Just because you can't read the RAW doesn't mean RAW doesn't work.

Alternatively, just ignore the troll.

The thing is, I am not trolling. I am seriously discussing this spell even if people think it is irrevelent because the example I used is understood by everybody on it's basic level.

However, there is some things more subtile about it like what would dispel magic or life disciple do with it on the instantaneous spell duration.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, Belier, what are you trying to accomplish?

Troll and make people angry?

Raise awareness on something anyone who knows how to play 5e already knows?

Gain internet points by showing "flaws" in the game designers' work?

[Maelynn]

*one
Well player sir 😂

Ooo, and it just keeps going! What is this, a relayed Curse of Typo? 😂

*profusely checks for errors before submitting her own post*

[Belier]

Seriously, Belier, what are you trying to accomplish?

Troll and make people angry?

Raise awareness on something anyone who knows how to play 5e already knows?

Gain internet points by showing "flaws" in the game designers' work?

Well the point is to correct the wording lf goodberry and demonstrate that dnd 5 do needs players to investigate into RAI more than RAW because the designers obviously didn't polish the game enaugh(even if it's still a fun game)

Besides, if I refer to my yesterday game, the adventurous league dm said life cleric don't work with goodberry, he gave moonbeam instant damage and said AL does not refer to save advice and tweeter for the game. So I think I am not completely off diacuasing it here.

[bid]

Well the point is to correct the wording of goodberry

Up to ten berries appear in your hand and are infused with potency. A creature can use its action to eat one berry. Eating a berry restores 1 hit point, and the berry provides enough nourishment to sustain a creature for one day.

The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell.


If anyone else is confused by "magic" or "duration", this takes care of it.

[JackPhoenix]

Well the point is to correct the wording lf goodberry and demonstrate that dnd 5 do needs players to investigate into RAI more than RAW because the designers obviously didn't polish the game enaugh(even if it's still a fun game)

Besides, if I refer to my yesterday game, the adventurous league dm said life cleric don't work with goodberry, he gave moonbeam instant damage and said AL does not refer to save advice and tweeter for the game. So I think I am not completely off diacuasing it here.

The wording is correct, and the RAW works just fine. The GM making suspect rulings is irrelevant to either RAW or RAI.

[Unoriginal]

Well the point is to correct the wording lf goodberry and demonstrate that dnd 5 do needs players to investigate into RAI more than RAW because the designers obviously didn't polish the game enaugh(even if it's still a fun game)


The wording needs no correction.

The spell creates the berries, instantaneously.

The spell is not the berries.

The berries have an effect with a duration different from the spells.

And that's the RAW. Trying to dispute it is just being obtuse.

The game is polished enough.



Besides, if I refer to my yesterday game, the adventurous league dm said life cleric don't work with goodberry, he gave moonbeam instant damage and said AL does not refer to save advice and tweeter for the game. So I think I am not completely off diacuasing it here.

Your DM was wrong, you should talk with the administrator to correct him.

[smcmike]

The wording works, but it is not perfect: it would clearly be better if it did not say “for the duration.”

[sophontteks]

I disagree. All instantanious spells have lingering effects. Fireballs don't disaappear the moment they leave the wizards hand. There is no duration for the spells effects. Its instant and whatever happens is permenant unless otherwise specified. Giving durations for all instantanious spells would add far more confusion then the confusion you uniquely have for the wording.

[Requilac]

But create or destroy water create or destroy mundane water. Once it is cast, nothing magical is left about it so there can only be an instantaneous duration.

We could also look at shadow blade, which create a magical blade for 1 minute and can be dispelled. This spell is closer to goodberry than create or destroy water in my opinion except for the concentration part.

You could dispell a shadow blade.
I know it is a weird comparaison, shadow blade being an illusion spell and having a different purpose.

Shadow Blade Is slightly a different matter. Keep in mind that it’s not creating an actual physical object, just an illusion. Hence why it deals psychic damage, not physical damage. Nothing is technically being created in the physical world, you are generating some metaphysical weapon which hurts people’s feelings and mind, not there body. The way I see it, that has a longer duration because the blade itself is only existent while the spell is active. The only thing which is keeping it from fading from oblivion is the magical energy of the spell. A goodberry has physical existence so it can persist when the spell ends, but the psychic shadow blade has no physical existence and is reliant on the spell’s energy to persist.

[Belier]

Shadow Blade Is slightly a different matter. Keep in mind that it’s not creating an actual physical object, just an illusion. Hence why it deals psychic damage, not physical damage. Nothing is technically being created in the physical world, you are generating some metaphysical weapon which hurts people’s feelings and mind, not there body. The way I see it, that has a longer duration because the blade itself is only existent while the spell is active. The only thing which is keeping it from fading from oblivion is the magical energy of the spell. A goodberry has physical existence so it can persist when the spell ends, but the psychic shadow blade has no physical existence and is reliant on the spell’s energy to persist.

What I meant by this is that the spell magic potency has a duration of 24 hours, meaning the spell should have a duration marked like shadow blade.

But I understand that good berries are real and they cannot dissipate after 24 hours since they provide nourrisment. They are kinda a hybrid spell between an effect with a duration and a spell instantaneous like create water. I'm going to edit top message wording according to this.

[Unoriginal]

They are kinda a hybrid spell between an effect with a duration and a spell instantaneous like create water. I'm going to edit top message wording according to this.

No, they're not.

The spell creates something, instantaneously.

What is created is magical for a certain duration.

If there was a spell called "Goodwater" that created water which, for 24h, could remove the first level of exhaustion of a character, it wouldn't make the water the spell.

[Requilac]

What I meant by this is that the spell magic potency has a duration of 24 hours, meaning the spell should have a duration marked like shadow blade.

But I understand that good berries are real and they cannot dissipate after 24 hours since they provide nourrisment. They are kinda a hybrid spell between an effect with a duration and a spell instantaneous like create water. I'm going to edit top message wording according to this.

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. What I meant was that the Goodberry spell creates a berry which is an independent entity. The spell creates it, but the spell doesn’t maintain its power. A Goodberry is not reliant on the spell to keep its power active. The Shadow Blade on the other hand does depend on the spell to keep its magic active. It’s not necessarily that the Shadow Blade’s form itself fades once the duration ends, the Shadow Blade fades because its power source is gone once the duration ends. What I am saying is that the Shadow Blade object itself is not what has the duration, it’s power source is. Or for an analogy, if you shut off the generator it’s power line while become inactive, but that doesn’t mean you have deactivated the electricity in the power line itself, just what was keeping the electricity flowing.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I think the real problem is that the OP has not read the PHB Chapter 10, Spellcasting, and skipped straight to the spell descriptions.

His basic good berry argument is that since the spell is instantaneous, but the magical healing lasts 24 hours, the spell can’t work as written, and should have a duration of 24 hours.

Which is why I saw he must not have chapter 10. If he had, he would have found on page 203 what instantaneous means:

“Instantaneous

Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.”

So, knowing what Instantaneous means in D&D, the spell works perfectly well as written.

The goodberries have a duration of instantaneous because the spell lasts for only an instant to create the berries. The spell ends at that point, but the berries exist past the end of the spell.

The berries lose their potency after 24 hours have passed, yes. But that is the nature of the item created by the spell, not the duration of the spell.

Likewise, since Dispels Magic only works on spells, it cannot do anything to the berries. The berries are the result of spell, not an ongoing spell effect.

RAW is not perfect, but they work better if you read all the rules.

[Belier]

I think the real problem is that the OP has not read the PHB Chapter 10, Spellcasting, and skipped straight to the spell descriptions.

His basic good berry argument is that since the spell is instantaneous, but the magical healing lasts 24 hours, the spell can’t work as written, and should have a duration of 24 hours.

Which is why I saw he must not have chapter 10. If he had, he would have found on page 203 what instantaneous means:

“Instantaneous

Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.”

So, knowing what Instantaneous means in D&D, the spell works perfectly well as written.

The goodberries have a duration of instantaneous because the spell lasts for only an instant to create the berries. The spell ends at that point, but the berries exist past the end of the spell.

The berries lose their potency after 24 hours have passed, yes. But that is the nature of the item created by the spell, not the duration of the spell.

Likewise, since Dispels Magic only works on spells, it cannot do anything to the berries. The berries are the result of spell, not an ongoing spell effect.

RAW is not perfect, but they work better if you read all the rules.

Your way of explaining this is the best stated I've found so far, but still, explain this. How could life disciple feature could be used then if the spell with an instantaneous duration mean that at the moment somebody eat a berry, it means the spell does not exist anymore and thus, goodberry will only heal for one. Then, how could you explain that it is official from wotc on twitter that life disciple works with goodberry. Life disciple says "when you use a spell to heal". If goodberry spell does not exist anymore, you cannot use the spell to trigger life disciple.

So far as I am concerned, I still believe you cannot dispell the berry, but you could dispell the potency in a berry that has a duration of 24 hours, which is why I believe this spell is a hybrid case of instantaneous and duration case at the same time.

[Blood of Gaea]

Your way of explaining this is the best stated I've found so far, but still, explain this. How could life disciple feature could be used then if the spell with an instantaneous duration mean that at the moment somebody eat a berry, it means the spell does not exist anymore and thus, goodberry will only heal for one. Then, how could you explain that it is official from wotc on twitter that life disciple works with goodberry. Life disciple says "when you use a spell to heal". If goodberry spell does not exist anymore, you cannot use the spell to trigger life disciple.

So far as I am concerned, I still believe you cannot dispell the berry, but you could dispell the potency in a berry that has a duration of 24 hours, which is why I believe this spell is a hybrid case of instantaneous and duration case at the same time.
Because you're enhancing the healing effect of the berries you're creating.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Your way of explaining this is the best stated I've found so far, but still, explain this. How could life disciple feature could be used then if the spell with an instantaneous duration mean that at the moment somebody eat a berry, it means the spell does not exist anymore and thus, goodberry will only heal for one. Then, how could you explain that it is official from wotc on twitter that life disciple works with goodberry. Life disciple says "when you use a spell to heal". If goodberry spell does not exist anymore, you cannot use the spell to trigger life disciple.

So far as I am concerned, I still believe you cannot dispell the berry, but you could dispell the potency in a berry that has a duration of 24 hours, which is why I believe this spell is a hybrid case of instantaneous and duration case at the same time.
I’m playing a Life Cleric currently, so I’m very familiar with the Disciple of Life feature.

“Disciple of Life

Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.”

The Disciple of Life feature only comes online when you use a spell to restore hitpoints. (So no effect with Preserve Life, which is not a spell).

Goodberry creates magic items that restores HP, and provides a full days meal.

For DoL to have an effect on goodberry, it has to be applying the DoL bonus during the casting of the spell, causing the spell to create berries where the healing feature of the spell is more effective.

The spell then ends normally, as per the standard rules for Instantaneous duration spells, creating magic items that can heal if eaten within a 24 hour time limit.

The effects of an Instantaneous spell can not be dispelled, even if they have a built in time limit. That is an important part of the Instantaneous duration.

[Belier]

I’m playing a Life Cleric currently, so I’m very familiar with the Disciple of Life feature.

“Disciple of Life

Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.”

The Disciple of Life feature only comes online when you use a spell to restore hitpoints. (So no effect with Preserve Life, which is not a spell).

Goodberry creates magic items that restores HP, and provides a full days meal.

For DoL to have an effect on goodberry, it has to be applying the DoL bonus during the casting of the spell, causing the spell to create berries where the healing feature of the spell is more effective.

The spell then ends normally, as per the standard rules for Instantaneous duration spells, creating magic items that can heal if eaten within a 24 hour time limit.

The effects of an Instantaneous spell can not be dispelled, even if they have a built in time limit. That is an important part of the Instantaneous duration.

All right I love you, you have the best explanations to convince me at the moment. So you are saying the number of hp that will be restored when a berry is eaten is set up at the very moment(instantaneous) the spell is casted and that it enhances the healing potency at that very moment from 1 to 4, which is why DoL work with this spell. This is logical enaugh for me per RAI and RAW.

The only wrong words in the spell of goodberry is "for the duration". If you remove this, it works exactly like you are describing. An instantaneous spell that can be enhanced with disciple of life for as long as the magical potency remains(24 hours)

Good night and thank you

[Tanarii]

Your way of explaining this is the best stated I've found so far, but still, explain this. How could life disciple feature could be used then if the spell with an instantaneous duration mean that at the moment somebody eat a berry, it means the spell does not exist anymore and thus, goodberry will only heal for one. Then, how could you explain that it is official from wotc on twitter that life disciple works with goodberry. Life disciple says "when you use a spell to heal". If goodberry spell does not exist anymore, you cannot use the spell to trigger life disciple.
It can't. Disciple of Life doesn't work with Goodberry under any reasonable reading of the two rules. JC made a bad call on this one.

[MaxWilson]

Your way of explaining this is the best stated I've found so far, but still, explain this. How could life disciple feature could be used then if the spell with an instantaneous duration mean that at the moment somebody eat a berry, it means the spell does not exist anymore and thus, goodberry will only heal for one.

It can't. The instantaneous duration of Goodberry is one of the ways we know that Crawford's ruling on Greatberry is wrong.

Goodberry is an instantaneous spell that creates berries, not a spell that heals. Those berries have special properties for the first 24 hours of their existence. This is analagous to Animate Dead, which is an instantaneous spell that creates zombies and skeletons that have a special property (telepathic link to creator and compulsion to obey) for the first 24 hours of their existence (renewable).

Goodberry is no more a spell that heals than Animate Dead is a spell that kills. Neither Disciple of Life nor Grim Harvest interacts with either spell.

[Unoriginal]

The only wrong words in the spell of goodberry is "for the duration". If you remove this, it works exactly like you are describing

Your capacity to be proven wrong yet still claim that you're right is astonishing.

There is no wrong words in that spell.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It can't. Disciple of Life doesn't work with Goodberry under any reasonable reading of the two rules. JC made a bad call on this one.

Yep. That's how we do things at my table.

It seems that this whole discussion is about torturing the spell description to make it fit with that bizarre ruling, when it's much easier to simply run the spell as written and assume that the ruling is in error.

To quote Nick Fury in the first Avengers film: I realise that the council have made their decision. However, since it is a stupid-ass decision, I have elected to ignore it.

[Sigreid]

The OPs reading of the spell is an excellent example of why we can't have nice things and a couple of the earlier editions went to overly complex explanations of simple concepts.

[KorvinStarmast]

It can't. Disciple of Life doesn't work with Goodberry under any reasonable reading of the two rules. JC made a bad call on this one. Restores hit points. That's what that ruling hinged upon. Most casters make regular goodberries (Hamburger berries, if you like) The Disciple of Life cleric makes Better Berries (Filet Mignon Berries, if you like).

The OPs reading of the spell is an excellent example of why we can't have nice things and a couple of the earlier editions went to overly complex explanations of simple concepts. Yeah. Willful misunderstanding is a curious thing. It doesn't matter that the design team went to some lengths to describe "unless otherwise stated, use plan English meaning" but that appears to have been ignored again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. Willful misunderstanding is a curious thing. It doesn't matter that the design team went to some lengths to describe "unless otherwise stated, use plan English meaning" but that appears to have been ignored again.

To me, it seems like more confirmation that clarity is in the eye of the beholder (as is disintegration :smallwink:). If a person insists on reading 5e rules the way they read 3e rules, they'll think everything is unclear and vague. Because they're looking for legalistic writing where that wasn't designed. The two systems have very different hermeneutics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics).

Or, to quote a song: A man [reads] what he wants to [read] and disregards the rest.

[Twigwit]

Yeah OP is being obtuse about the RAW, which is weird that he picked goodberry of all things.

Twinned Metamagic to me is the prime example of vagueness getting in the way of my game. According to JC Dragon's Breath can't be twinned because the recipients are targets AND the breath effect itself has targets, but Haste can be Twinned because the extra attack doesn't have a "target"? Who and what constitutes a target creature has been a huge pain because there seems to be no objectively right answer.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or, to quote a song: A man [reads] what he wants to [read] and disregards the rest. Yeah. It's also how we get the Nameless King ... :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah OP is being obtuse about the RAW, which is weird that he picked goodberry of all things.

Twinned Metamagic to me is the prime example of vagueness getting in the way of my game. According to JC Dragon's Breath can't be twinned because the recipients are targets AND the breath effect itself has targets, but Haste can be Twinned because the extra attack doesn't have a "target"? Who and what constitutes a target creature has been a huge pain because there seems to be no objectively right answer.

My personal heuristic is "can the spell itself (as in the part directly described in the spell text, including damage rolls etc) directly affect multiple targets"?

So Haste allows the target to do [option from list]. What they do with it is up to them--they could be making an attack against an object, they could be doing a lot of other things.

Dragon's Breath innately affects multiple people (it produces a cone effect). Since it's described in the spell's text as such, it's not a valid spell for twinned.

It's not a perfect heuristic, but then it's never come up. I've never actually had a sorcerer at the table, so...

[Pex]

To me, it seems like more confirmation that clarity is in the eye of the beholder (as is disintegration :smallwink:). If a person insists on reading 5e rules the way they read 3e rules, they'll think everything is unclear and vague. Because they're looking for legalistic writing where that wasn't designed. The two systems have very different hermeneutics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics).

Or, to quote a song: A man [reads] what he wants to [read] and disregards the rest.

Or rather the rules are vague and players (including DMs) want clarity. They end up having to make up their own decisions or seek advice online or Sage Advice, learn that everyone has different opinions, then make up their own decisions anyway such that the rules of the game depends on who is DM that day.

At some tables great weapon style works for paladin smites. At other tables it doesn't.
At some tables players choose the creatures conjured. At other tables it's the DM.
At some tables Life Clerics can use their ability on Goodberry. At other tables they can't.

[youtellatale]

1. At some tables great weapon style works for paladin smites. At other tables it doesn't.
2. At some tables players choose the creatures conjured. At other tables it's the DM.
3. At some tables Life Clerics can use their ability on Goodberry. At other tables they can't.

A1: Why would #1 not work? Nothing in the PHB even remotely states that it would not...this genuinely makes me curious.

A2: Totally get #2 as it's a point of contention for many. Personally I lend myself toward giving the DM a list of creatures that you'd like to summon and they pick from said list. Though this should be a conversation that is had between DM & player beforehand when any summoning spell is taken.

A3: Again, not sure why it wouldn't work. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe that's just my reading of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or rather the rules are vague and players (including DMs) want clarity. They end up having to make up their own decisions or seek advice online or Sage Advice, learn that everyone has different opinions, then make up their own decisions anyway such that the rules of the game depends on who is DM that day.


Thus it has always been, thus it will always be. 3e wouldn't have 33 RAW FAQ threads (plus about 20-ish for PF) on this forum alone if having "clearer" (a term that's not well-defined) rules meant anything. Not to mention that the list of house-rules I've seen for 3e games is usually several times as long (and much more complex) than any I've seen for 5e.

RPG rules are different things than boardgame (or competitive sport) rules. They exist for different purposes and require different interpretations.

[strangebloke]

A1: Why would #1 not work? Nothing in the PHB even remotely states that it would not...this genuinely makes me curious.

A2: Totally get #2 as it's a point of contention for many. Personally I lend myself toward giving the DM a list of creatures that you'd like to summon and they pick from said list. Though this should be a conversation that is had between DM & player beforehand when any summoning spell is taken.

A3: Again, not sure why it wouldn't work. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe that's just my reading of it.

1: RAI according to Mearls/JC. It works by RAW, and isn't overpowered, though. If your DM doesn't know about the tweets (most don't) you can almost certainly get away with it.

2: Pretty much. Basically the rules don't specify who gets to choose for some of the spells, so its totally ambiguous. I hate 'summoner' types with a firey burning passion, so you can guess how I rule on this. (don't play a fracking summoner)

3: You use the spell to create berries. The berries heal people. Life Cleric works on spells used to heal. Even if the intent of using the spell is to heal, what it does is create berries. It's a gray area, but I would argue that a strict reading doesn't allow it.

[sophontteks]

A1: Why would #1 not work? Nothing in the PHB even remotely states that it would not...this genuinely makes me curious.

A2: Totally get #2 as it's a point of contention for many. Personally I lend myself toward giving the DM a list of creatures that you'd like to summon and they pick from said list. Though this should be a conversation that is had between DM & player beforehand when any summoning spell is taken.

A3: Again, not sure why it wouldn't work. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe that's just my reading of it.

They ettera'd one. I believe. By RAW it would work but they clarified that it wasn't intended to. Some people wouldn't play by or know of the ettera, while other groups would.

For three I guess some people just don't like the ruling they made, judging by the responses here at least.

[strangebloke]

They ettera'd one. I believe. By RAW it would work but they clarified that it wasn't intended to. Some people wouldn't play by or know of the ettera, while other groups would.

For three I guess some people just don't like the ruling they made, judging by the responses here at least.

No errata, just a RAI tweet from I think Mearls.

In other words, nothing that most people know about.

[sophontteks]

No errata, just a RAI tweet from I think Mearls.

In other words, nothing that most people know about.
Got it. I wasn't going to look it up but I remember someone clarifying its intention. Thanks for clarifying.

[youtellatale]

1: RAI according to Mearls/JC. It works by RAW, and isn't overpowered, though. If your DM doesn't know about the tweets (most don't) you can almost certainly get away with it.

2: Pretty much. Basically the rules don't specify who gets to choose for some of the spells, so its totally ambiguous. I hate 'summoner' types with a firey burning passion, so you can guess how I rule on this. (don't play a fracking summoner)

3: You use the spell to create berries. The berries heal people. Life Cleric works on spells used to heal. Even if the intent of using the spell is to heal, what it does is create berries. It's a gray area, but I would argue that a strict reading doesn't allow it.

With #1 you're talking about re-rolling 1s and 2s. That's a separate issue not whether or not Divine Smite works. Divine Smite works with ANY melee weapon attack. (Also Mearls totally contradicted himself here: 2014 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/great-weapon-smite/) and here: 2016 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/18/does-the-paladin-great-weapon-fighting-affect-the-divine-smite-damage-dices/)

In regards to #3 - you actually create healing berries. Berries that heal. Thus they are boosted, though this is such a non-issue in every game I've played that it just doesn't warrant anything of note from me.

[Tanarii]

At some tables players choose the creatures conjured. At other tables it's the DM.

At some table you habe full control over minions. At others you give them orders but the DM controls them.

Of course, the most common I've seen in AL DMs is like its been forever: player controls the minion but the DM reserves the right to veto silly BS.

[sophontteks]

With #1 you're talking about re-rolling 1s and 2s. That's a separate issue not whether or not Divine Smite works. Divine Smite works with ANY melee weapon attack. (Also Mearls totally contradicted himself here: 2014 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/great-weapon-smite/) and here: 2016 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/18/does-the-paladin-great-weapon-fighting-affect-the-divine-smite-damage-dices/)

In regards to #3 - you actually create healing berries. Berries that heal. Thus they are boosted, though this is such a non-issue in every game I've played that it just doesn't warrant anything of note from me.
Yeah Mearls isn't any authority on it anyway. Here's Jeremy's ruling:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

[strangebloke]

With #1 you're talking about re-rolling 1s and 2s. That's a separate issue not whether or not Divine Smite works. Divine Smite works with ANY melee weapon attack. (Also Mearls totally contradicted himself here: 2014 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/great-weapon-smite/) and here: 2016 answer (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/18/does-the-paladin-great-weapon-fighting-affect-the-divine-smite-damage-dices/)

In regards to #3 - you actually create healing berries. Berries that heal. Thus they are boosted, though this is such a non-issue in every game I've played that it just doesn't warrant anything of note from me.

#1:Correct. Re-rolling 1's and 2's on smites is the point of contention. By RAW you can. RAI clarification says you can't.

#3:Disciple of Life requires a spell that restores hit points. Goodberry creates berries that restore hit points if used in the first 24 hours.

goodberry->healing berries->healing
vs.
cure wounds->healing.

Whether or not this makes a difference is up to a DM, but unlike Pex I don't really care about that. It's a very silly trick that you have to deliberately build into. The arguments for and against it have been hashed out in the thread.

[youtellatale]

#1:Correct. Re-rolling 1's and 2's on smites is the point of contention. By RAW you can. RAI clarification says you can't.

#3:Disciple of Life requires a spell that restores hit points. Goodberry creates berries that restore hit points if used in the first 24 hours.

goodberry->healing berries->healing
vs.
cure wounds->healing.

Whether or not this makes a difference is up to a DM, but unlike Pex I don't really care about that. It's a very silly trick that you have to deliberately build into. The arguments for and against it have been hashed out in the thread.

I think we're in agreement on the important part about #3 - it isn't important enough to argue about. As for re-rolling 1s & 2s: I haven't seen it come up much if any at all when playing in the games I've played in so maybe it's just me but this isn't a huge deal either way.

[Belier]

I think we're in agreement on the important part about #3 - it isn't important enough to argue about. As for re-rolling 1s & 2s: I haven't seen it come up much if any at all when playing in the games I've played in so maybe it's just me but this isn't a huge deal either way.

Well on a D8 reroll 1 and 2, the average damage goes from 4.5 to 4.93 wich doesn't seem game breaking. As a dm thought, I clearly think the intent of the style is to be applied on the weapon strike physical part and not on any magic coming from the weapon or pc.

[Tubben]

You discuss and discuss, and forget the most important thing, if you eat like 10 goodberrys for some hps: Will you get fat doing this ? I mean, one goodberry should have like 2000-3000 kcal if it's enough for one day :)

[Belier]

You discuss and discuss, and forget the most important thing, if you eat like 10 goodberrys for some hps: Will you get fat doing this ? I mean, one goodberry should have like 2000-3000 kcal if it's enough for one day :)

It is magical sustain, it has nothing to do with kcal lol

[strangebloke]

I think we're in agreement on the important part about #3 - it isn't important enough to argue about. As for re-rolling 1s & 2s: I haven't seen it come up much if any at all when playing in the games I've played in so maybe it's just me but this isn't a huge deal either way.


Well on a D8 reroll 1 and 2, the average damage goes from 4.5 to 4.93 wich doesn't seem game breaking. As a dm thought, I clearly think the intent of the style is to be applied on the weapon strike physical part and not on any magic coming from the weapon or pc.

I think #1 does matter, if not a ton. GWF is a pretty weak fighting style. Defense is competitive with it if you are a paladin with a greatsword. Whether or not GWF applies to smite and GFB is going to be a factor in which one I pick, possibly the deciding factor.

As to it coming up or not... it comes up in every game where you have a paladin who wields a two-handed weapon or when you have a Battlemaster who has GWF. So not all the time, but reasonably often.

As to it being unrealistic.... eh. I mean, what the heck does a battlemaster damage die represent, anyway? What does 'rerolling a 1 or a 2' represent? The fighting styles are pretty darn gameified.

[Willie the Duck]

The OPs reading of the spell is an excellent example of why we can't have nice things and a couple of the earlier editions went to overly complex explanations of simple concepts.

Well, that was part of the original point... I think. It seemed to be that people shouldn't obsess over the minute wording of spells, while at the same time obsessing over the minute wording of a spell. I think this contradiction (which scans as hypocrisy, although I understand the value of breaking the rule one advocates to prove a point) was why they have received such pushback. However, this isn't exactly a grand proclamation, given that it is the advice that the entire edition seems to have been built around.


Or rather the rules are vague and players (including DMs) want clarity. They end up having to make up their own decisions or seek advice online or Sage Advice, learn that everyone has different opinions, then make up their own decisions anyway such that the rules of the game depends on who is DM that day.

And unlike other editions, they are up front about it! Isn't it great!?

:wink:

[BoringInfoGuy]

All right I love you, you have the best explanations to convince me at the moment. So you are saying the number of hp that will be restored when a berry is eaten is set up at the very moment(instantaneous) the spell is casted and that it enhances the healing potency at that very moment from 1 to 4, which is why DoL work with this spell. This is logical enaugh for me per RAI and RAW.

The only wrong words in the spell of goodberry is "for the duration". If you remove this, it works exactly like you are describing. An instantaneous spell that can be enhanced with disciple of life for as long as the magical potency remains(24 hours)

Good night and thank you
You are welcome. Having the phrase “for the duration” in the spell description, but not referring to the Duration tag on the spell is perhaps not the best wording possible. But calling them wrong words is too strong. In context, it is fairly clear that the duration mentioned here is the duration that the berries keep their magical potency, not the Duration of the spell. It’s an language problem. Either they write simply and let context clarify the meaning, or they try to could try to write everything like a legal document which tries to severely limit everything to a single possible interpretation, but becomes all but unreadable to non lawyers.

It can't. Disciple of Life doesn't work with Goodberry under any reasonable reading of the two rules. JC made a bad call on this one.


It can't. The instantaneous duration of Goodberry is one of the ways we know that Crawford's ruling on Greatberry is wrong.

Goodberry is an instantaneous spell that creates berries, not a spell that heals. Those berries have special properties for the first 24 hours of their existence. This is analagous to Animate Dead, which is an instantaneous spell that creates zombies and skeletons that have a special property (telepathic link to creator and compulsion to obey) for the first 24 hours of their existence (renewable).

Goodberry is no more a spell that heals than Animate Dead is a spell that kills. Neither Disciple of Life nor Grim Harvest interacts with either spell.
I am going to respectfully disagree with both of you.

MaxWilson, you provide a good argument against DoL not affecting Goodberry by comparing it to The interaction between Grim Harvest and Animate Dead. I see where you are coming from, but the two spells are not analogous.

As you said, Animate Dead is an Instant Duration spell that creates undead under the control of the caster for a set time period. If the caster directs the undead to attack an opponent, and the opponent is killed, then no interaction with Grim Harvest is a reasonable ruling, because the spell Animate Dead is no longer active, just the result of the casting.

But with Goodberry, the healing property of the Goodberry is an intrinsic property of the spell. When you cast Goodberry, the channeled magical forces of the spell creates berries, and infuses those berries with both a full days meal and magical healing. This obviously must happen while the spell is active.

So the Desciple of Life feature has two requirements. It must be a spell of 1st level or higher. The spell must be used to restore hitpoints to a creature. Goodberry is a spell that creates berries with the intrinsic property of restoring hitpoints. That the healing is delayed until a specific trigger is applied is not a restriction.

A Druid casting Goodberry is putting a small amount of magical healing into the berry with the target of whoever eats the berry within 24 hours.

A Life Cleric casting Goodberry is also putting a small amount of healing magic into the berry, but they are better at - channeling / shaping / weaving / whatevering - healing spells.

It’s not the spell that heals, it’s the berry created by the spell, is not a bad argument. If this was 3.5, I would probably agree. But 5e is not trying to be as codified as 3.5.

My 5e counter argument since the spell requires a 1st level or higher to cast and is used to heal as part of its effect, it fulfills the requirements set by Disciple of Life. The SPELL creates an item that IS USED TO HEAL. Anything else is superfluous to whether it qualifies for DoL.

Perhaps it would help to look at it this way. The spell has to put the healing into the berry before it can be eaten and provide that healing. Disciple of Life alters spells so that they provide more healing.

While this is not the only way to read how Disciple of Life affects Goodberry, it is a reasonable reading of how the ability and spell interact.

[OzDragon]

I also think this should be brought up in this discussion. This is only about the berries being able to be dispelled or not.

Are the berries magical once produced and up until they lose potency?

If they are they are subject to dispel magic, unless they are catagorized like magic weapons/armor and can not be.

If they are not then how do they then deliver a full days rations and healing? Is there an in world berry that provides the same benefits that this spell is conjuring from?

My point is this these berries while summoned by an instant duration spell are in fact magical until they lose potency. They should be subject to dispel magic.

[Pex]

Thus it has always been, thus it will always be. 3e wouldn't have 33 RAW FAQ threads (plus about 20-ish for PF) on this forum alone if having "clearer" (a term that's not well-defined) rules meant anything. Not to mention that the list of house-rules I've seen for 3e games is usually several times as long (and much more complex) than any I've seen for 5e.

RPG rules are different things than boardgame (or competitive sport) rules. They exist for different purposes and require different interpretations.

The difference is you know the house rules used in 3E games are house rules. When you play another 3E game with a different DM you don't expect to be using them. With 5E the fundamental rules on how the game is played are changed depending on the DM. It becomes a shock when how you played the game before is no longer valid. Because the different interpretations are not considered house rules the DM has no reason to think he needs to address them and players don't consider asking. They don't know there's a difference until the game is being played and it's too late. For the experienced players savvy of the problem, they might bring a list of questions to every new 5E campaign to relearn how to play the game when they shouldn't have to.

[Unoriginal]

I also think this should be brought up in this discussion. This is only about the berries being able to be dispelled or not.

Are the berries magical once produced and up until they lose potency?

If they are they are subject to dispel magic, unless they are catagorized like magic weapons/armor and can not be.

If they are not then how do they then deliver a full days rations and healing? Is there an in world berry that provides the same benefits that this spell is conjuring from?

My point is this these berries while summoned by an instant duration spell are in fact magical until they lose potency. They should be subject to dispel magic.

What is created by an instantaneous effect cannot be Dispelled.

The magic of the berries is not the kind that can be Dispelled by the Dispel Magic spell, either. So no, your point doesn't hold up to RAW or RAI.

[Belier]

The difference is you know the house rules used in 3E games are house rules. When you play another 3E game with a different DM you don't expect to be using them. With 5E the fundamental rules on how the game is played are changed depending on the DM. It becomes a shock when how you played the game before is no longer valid. Because the different interpretations are not considered house rules the DM has no reason to think he needs to address them and players don't consider asking. They don't know there's a difference until the game is being played and it's too late. For the experienced players savvy of the problem, they might bring a list of questions to every new 5E campaign to relearn how to play the game when they shouldn't have to.

I kind of agree with you on this. It happens more often with 5th than 3.5. I played with 4 different dm and none plays the same rules the same ways. 3 of which are AL dms.

[MaxWilson]

MaxWilson, you provide a good argument against DoL not affecting Goodberry by comparing it to The interaction between Grim Harvest and Animate Dead. I see where you are coming from, but the two spells are not analogous.

As you said, Animate Dead is an Instant Duration spell that creates undead under the control of the caster for a set time period. If the caster directs the undead to attack an opponent, and the opponent is killed, then no interaction with Grim Harvest is a reasonable ruling, because the spell Animate Dead is no longer active, just the result of the casting.

But with Goodberry, the healing property of the Goodberry is an intrinsic property of the spell. When you cast Goodberry, the channeled magical forces of the spell creates berries, and infuses those berries with both a full days meal and magical healing. This obviously must happen while the spell is active.

So the Desciple of Life feature has two requirements. It must be a spell of 1st level or higher. The spell must be used to restore hitpoints to a creature. Goodberry is a spell that creates berries with the intrinsic property of restoring hitpoints. That the healing is delayed until a specific trigger is applied is not a restriction.

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're drawing, here in the bolded part.

Evard's Black Tentacles create magical tentacles with the property of killing things. Animate Dead creates (magical?) undead creatures with the property of killing things. (It's right there in their MM fluff.) Evard's Black Tentacles clearly and unambiguously gives the Necromancer back HP every time they kill something. Animate Dead does not, because the spell is instantaneous and creates skeletons instead of killing things.

That's exactly analagous to Goodberry AFAICT. It's not reasonable to rule that one instantaneous spell counts its effects as part of the spell (even though the spell is over) and the other one does not.

In both cases, the created objects last indefinitely. Goodberries can still be eaten after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer heal). Skeletons can still kill things after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer on command).

Is it weird that Grim Harvest gives you HP back from Evard's Black Tentacles but not from Animate Dead? Yes, it's somewhat weird. But that's how 5E is written: very jargon-centric, with not much explanation in roleplaying terms. I guess we're meant to assume that the tentacles are the physical manifestation of congealed magical energy (which vanishes if the energy is cut off), and that the magical energy maintains a connection back to the Necromancer which he can siphon life energy off of. That's not true of Animate Skeleton: there is no ongoing flow.

Is it weird that Disciple of Life gives you extra HP back from Aura of Vitality and Cure Wounds but not from Goodberry? Yes, it's somewhat weird. But I guess we're meant to assume that the Aura and the Cure spells maintain a flow of healing energy back to the cleric (which vanishes if the energy is cut off) which he can use for extra healing. That's not true of Goodberry: there is no ongoing flow.

YMMV.

[Belier]

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're drawing, here in the bolded part.

Evard's Black Tentacles create magical tentacles with the property of killing things. Animate Dead creates (magical?) undead creatures with the property of killing things. (It's right there in their MM fluff.) Evard's Black Tentacles clearly and unambiguously gives the Necromancer back HP every time they kill something. Animate Dead does not, because the spell is instantaneous and creates skeletons instead of killing things.

That's exactly analagous to Goodberry AFAICT. It's not reasonable to rule that one instantaneous spell counts its effects as part of the spell (even though the spell is over) and the other one does not.

In both cases, the created objects last indefinitely. Goodberries can still be eaten after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer heal). Skeletons can still kill things after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer on command).

Is it weird that Grim Harvest gives you HP back from Evard's Black Tentacles but not from Animate Dead? Yes, it's somewhat weird. But that's how 5E is written: very jargon-centric, with not much explanation in roleplaying terms. I guess we're meant to assume that the tentacles are the physical manifestation of congealed magical energy (which vanishes if the energy is cut off), and that the magical energy maintains a connection back to the Necromancer which he can siphon life energy off of. That's not true of Animate Skeleton: there is no ongoing flow.

Is it weird that Disciple of Life gives you extra HP back from Aura of Vitality and Cure Wounds but not from Goodberry? Yes, it's somewhat weird. But I guess we're meant to assume that the Aura and the Cure spells maintain a flow of healing energy back to the cleric (which vanishes if the energy is cut off) which he can use for extra healing. That's not true of Goodberry: there is no ongoing flow.

YMMV.

I think he meant that it is not the spell that killed the target but the attack action of the zombi. He compared it to the case of the berries gaining their potency at the moment the spell is cast.

Of course, it would be better if he could explain it to you himself because I can't be 100% sure that was the distinction made.

Life disciple magic enhanced berries vs grim harvest feature with casting zombies. The feature does not enhance the zombies to trigger health gains when they kill something.

[Zalabim]

In very game-ified terms: Animate Dead gives the caster a special option. They can use a bonus action to give the created creature a command. That is to say, for 24 hours after the spell is cast, the caster can use the spell's magic to give their creation orders. Animate dead creates zombies or skeletons when cast and can be used to command them.

Goodberry also has a special option. Anyone can use an action to consume a berry and regain 1 HP. That is to say, for 24 hours after the spell is cast, anyone can use the spell's magic to regain HP. Goodberry creates berries when cast and can be used to regain HP.

Dragon's Breath works under the same principle. The recipient is using the spell each time they take the special action it gives them.

All this might be very obvious (or work completely differently, depending on how it's written) if they were made up in 4E-styled description blocks.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're drawing, here in the bolded part.

Evard's Black Tentacles create magical tentacles with the property of killing things. Animate Dead creates (magical?) undead creatures with the property of killing things. (It's right there in their MM fluff.) Evard's Black Tentacles clearly and unambiguously gives the Necromancer back HP every time they kill something. Animate Dead does not, because the spell is instantaneous and creates skeletons instead of killing things.

That's exactly analagous to Goodberry AFAICT. It's not reasonable to rule that one instantaneous spell counts its effects as part of the spell (even though the spell is over) and the other one does not. [1]

In both cases, the created objects last indefinitely. Goodberries can still be eaten after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer heal). Skeletons can still kill things after the 24-hour window elapses (but no longer on command).

Is it weird that Grim Harvest gives you HP back from Evard's Black Tentacles but not from Animate Dead?[2] Yes, it's somewhat weird. But that's how 5E is written: very jargon-centric, with not much explanation in roleplaying terms. I guess[3] we're meant to assume that the tentacles are the physical manifestation of congealed magical energy (which vanishes if the energy is cut off), and that the magical energy maintains a connection back to the Necromancer which he can siphon life energy off of. That's not true of Animate Skeleton: there is no ongoing flow.[4]

Is it weird that Disciple of Life gives you extra HP back from Aura of Vitality and Cure Wounds but not from Goodberry? Yes, it's somewhat weird. But I guess[3] we're meant to assume that the Aura and the Cure spells maintain a flow of healing energy back to the cleric (which vanishes if the energy is cut off) which he can use for extra healing. That's not true of Goodberry: there is no ongoing flow.

YMMV.
Sorry for the delay in response. My anniversary was Monday, and this is the first chance I’ve had to think over your response and craft a (hopefully) coherent response.

[1]. You are seeing the fact that Animate Dead is an Instantaneous spell while Evard’s Black Tentacles as being the significant factor whether Grim Harvest can be applied, and using that as the argument why Disciple of Life can not trigger.

I have two arguments against this.

The first is that being an Instantaneous Duration Spell is not the significant difference between Evard’s Black Tentacles and Animate Dead.

Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for
an instant.

EVERY spell that is Instantaneous has the property that the effect of the spell is impossible to be dispelled, because the magic of the spell lasts only for an instant.

This is as true whether the effect or creation lasts for a moment itself, or is permanent like a skeleton created by Animate Dead. If your theory is correct then we would end up with situations like this:

Player: I killed the orc with a 1st level Magic Missle, so I get two Hit Points back from Grim Harvest.

DM: Not so fast. It’s an Instantaneous Spell, so the spell creates the magical Darts and then the spell ended. The Darts created by the spell killed the orc, not the spell.

Player: What?!

DM: The spell lasts for just an instant. By the time Darts had streaked across the field to hit the orc, the spell was already over. The Darts are the effect of the spell, not the spell itself, see?

I do not think this is how it is supposed to work.

So what is the significant difference between Evard’s Black Tentacles and Animate Dead? The intrinsic nature of the spells.

The intrinsic nature of Evard’s Black Tentacles is to damage and restrain. Anything that enters into the area of the spell is attacked by the tentacles. All they do is attack. Despite requiring the concentration of the caster, they can not be made to do anything other than attack. The caster cannot, for example, direct the tentacles to yank weapons out of the hands of someone in the Tentacles area of effect, or ignore an ally that was pushed into the area.

Restraining and dealing damage is central to what the spell does.

In contrast, the intrinsic nature of Animate Dead is to give unlife to a corpse / Skeleton, and put that creature under your control. A skeleton that has no orders will do nothing except defend itself unless attacked.

Say a necromancer helps kill a dragon and it’s dragon cultists. The party realizes that the dragon’s hoard is too large for them to carry. So the Necromancer casts Animate Dead on some cultists to create zombies to carry more loot back to town. Then, while celebrating back at the Inn, the now drunk Necromancer has the undead act as backup dancers while he sings and dances about a night that was thrilling.

This is just as much a way to use the Animate Dead as sending it into combat with enemies. Obeying orders like under the full control option of a Dominate Spell is central to what the spell does, not doing damage.

(Related question. Would you rule that a creature ordered to attack under the effects of Dominate Person be able to trigger Grim Life? I would not).

So, do you see where I see a distinction now? A spell can do damage and kill, without it being an intrinsic part of the spell. With Telekinesis, you can move things around, but it does not do damage. But if you pushed a creature off a cliff with the spell, it could die from the falling damage. The spell effect caused the death, but would not, I believe, trigger Grim Harvest.

Healing is Intrinsic to the Goodberry spell just as much as dealing damage is intrinsic to Evard’s Black Tentacles. Someone has to eat the berry to receive the healing. Someone must likewise be in the area of effect to take damage from the tentacles.

Compare the Intrinsic nature of the spells instead of the duration, and you should see the first difference.

[2] it does not seem weird to me, because I see a logical distinction between the two spells

[3] Since D&D Magic has no real life counterpart, we are all guessing how it works. And because the description of how magic works is deliberately vague, we are all guessing from incomplete information. The problem is Confirmation Bias. Once we have gotten an idea how something is, all new information is judged by how well it fits our currently held beliefs.

So when - for a non random example - JC says that DoL works on Goodberry, the natural human response is to go “That does not fit how I belief the system works, he must have made a mistake”. It is difficult to instead to entertain the idea “That does not fit how I believe the system works, maybe I don’t understand it as well as I thought.”

[4]Magical flow is your theory of what Grim Harvest and Disciple of Life are interacting with.

Now we get into the second reason why Grim Harvest and Animate Dead are not a good argument for whether Goodberry can be affected by Disciple of Life. DoL and GH are different abilities. Similar, but not the same. Looking at the abilities side by side, along with the Life Domain Blessed Healer helps illustrate the difference.

Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to restore hit points to a creature, the creature regains additional hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.

Blessed Healer
Beginning at 6th level, the Healing Spells you cast on others heal you as well. When you Cast a Spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature other than you, you regain hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.

Grim Harvest
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to reap life energy from creatures you kill with your spells. Once per turn when you kill one or more creatures with a spell of 1st level or higher, you regain hit points equal to twice the spell’s level, or three times its level if the spell belongs to the School of Necromancy. You don’t gain this benefit for killing constructs or undead.

All three abilities follow the same pattern. The first sentence says what level the ability comes online, followed by a simple description of the ability. The second sentence gives the game mechanics and includes the phrase “a spell of 1st level or higher”.

To me, the way they are so similar makes the differences stand out. .

DoL triggers when you USE a spell to restore hit points.

BH triggers when you CAST a spell to restore hit points to a creature other than the caster.

Both abilities alter the effects of healing spells. But since the trigger language is different, wouldn’t it be sensible to agree that just because a healing spell has triggered one ability, it won’t always trigger both?

Use is a VERY generic keyword. One of the arguments against Goodberry getting the DoL bonus is that when the spell is cast, it does not heal, it creates berries that heal (and nourish). But that is how Blessed Healer is written, not DoL.

For example, a 1st level party has just ended a combat, and are low on life. More enemies are trying to break down the door. A 1st level Human Life Cleric with the [Magic Initiate] feat casts uses his last slot to cast Goodberries, and divides them out. Everyone eats some berries, and regains Hit Points and are nourished.

Was the spell used to restore Hit Points? Yes. If the spell had not been cast, no HP could have been restored. Does it matter that the healing did not happen at the time of casting? No. If it did, that would have been specified like in Blessed Healer. If a spell is used to restore Hit Points, it qualifies.

If the cleric was level 6 and cast Goodberry, then Blessed Healer would not be able to trigger, because that DOES require the healing to target someone other than the caster when the spell is cast. It has a more restrictive trigger than DoL

Grim Harvest triggers when you kill with a spell. The language is not quite as loose as DoL. If it followed the model of DoL and said “Whenever you use a spell of 1st level or higher to kill a creature” then i would say the two abilities could be used to make statements of the if “If GH can’t trigger in situation x, then DoL can’t either,” variety.

DoL provides bonus healing to all 1st level spells or higher without further limit. Single target, multiple targets, ongoing healing effects, or even delayed healing, there is no further restriction.

BH provides healing to the caster only when casting the spell heals someone other then the caster. If multiple allies are healed in a mass healing spell, the cleric only receives the bonus healing once. If a spell is providing healing over the course of several rounds, BH is not triggered on those later rounds.

GH triggers when a spell kills a creature. It can only trigger once a turn. But an ongoing spell could trigger GH multiple times across the rounds when it is active.

So that is the other argument against using what conditions trigger Grim Harvest to determine what conditions can trigger Disciple of Life. They are different abilities with different triggers.

[4]Okay, if I don’t agree with the magical flow requirement guess, then what is my guess?

Simply put, these caster abilities are not interacting with the spell effects, but reshaping the spells as they are being cast.

Disciple of Life takes the aspect of spells that restores hit points, and boosts it.

Blessed Healer makes it so that when a healing spell targets someone other than the caster, some extra healing is created and targets the caster.

Both of these abilities are altering whatever aspect of magic is used to heal. If a spell has no healing aspect, there is nothing to reshape and boost.

Grim Reaper reshapes spells so that a life energy harvesting component is added. Because the trigger is killing a creature, this harvester rider is tied to the damage dealing components of spells. (Or any save vs death type components). When something is killed, the harvester collects some of the life energy and channels it into the caster. If the spell is necrotic, it is more effective at collecting life energy.

But just like how the Life Cleric abilities need the spell to have an intrinsic healing component to boost, Grim Harvest needs the spell to have an intrinsic damage / killing component to attach the harvester to.

So when a Life Cleric casts Goodberry, the Disciple of Life ability reshapes the spell slightly, boosting the healing magic that is being put into the berry. The same way it reshapes any spell with a healing component.

When Grim Reaper interacts with a spell, it reshapes the damage dealing component of a spell so that life energy is harvested from killed creatures. If the spell lacks a damage dealing component, Grim Harvest has nothing to reshape. So the spells Magic Missle, Fireball, and Evard’s Black Tentacles have their damage dealing aspect altered, and harvesting is possible. But while spells like Telekinesis, Dominate Person, and Animate undead can be used to kill, the spells themselves do not have an intrinsic damage dealing component to reshape.

Tl;dr

The various abilities that alters the effects of spells are applied during the casting of the spell, not whenever the trigger condition occurs.

Wether a spell can be effected by an ability is dependent on what the essential nature of the spell, what naturally belongs there.

For Goodberry, healing is part of the spell. You cannot create a Goodberry that does not heal if eaten (someone with full HP already cannot be healed further. This is true of all healing spells)

For Animate Dead, the essential elements that belong naturally to the spell are unlife and domination, not damage. The spell actually overrides the natural murder tendencies of the undead it creates.

[Belier]

Wow that was a long text to read, I guess not everyone s gonna read it. I read it all so you did not type it in vain. I like the explanation.
Still, I don't like the "for the duration" wording, it is not necessary for the spell to be understood. The duration could either refer to the casting of the spell or to the one that wasnt stated yet at the end of the spell. It is because this duration wasn't stated yet that I toyed with the title of the thread stating it cannot heal per RAW even if the intend of the spell is obvious. If the 24 hours wasn't stated yet, then it had to obligatory refer to the one of the casting time. That was the game and people started to believe I was throlling with the click bait and everything, even if my intends were dead serious about discussing RAW and RAI.

Any way, that is a real nice explaination. I wish all DMs would let my goodberries heal for more but they probly won't bother to understand your great explanation and call it too strong while it is in fact not game breaking after the first 2-3 so first levels. Goodberries are not really changing combats with an action required to eat it and 4 hp is not much in a turn, my wisdom gives that passively on a healing spell. And besides, I don't feel the need to cast goodberries until the players have no hit dices left to heal themselves and that means the campaing is hard and thus the improved goodberries become a good supplement. I'd rather keep my slot for versatility than to waste it on players that have still hit dices. Same with healing spirits. I see these spells as supplements for harder than normal campaigns that eats players hit dices. In fact, it is a boon to be able to have potent healing if all hit dices are gone, you can keep up more versatility this way.

So at what level is it op? At level 1 if human variant but you can cast it only once a day. At level 2 if you slowes down your level 2 spells progressions. At level 3 also it is still a bit gamebreaking if you can cast it a lot but as soon as you hit 4-5 level it starts to be more reasonable and at that moment there is also healing spirit, so you are keeping a level 2 slots or 2 of versatility instead but the hit dices start to provides more healing throughout the day any way because you can gain about 12-15 hp rolling 2 hit dice per short rest. Or you can burn them gaining over 20 in the first one. So it feels less relevant.

Basically, it looks insanely op out of combat for about the moment the moon druid looks insanely op in combats, but peoples dare not nerf the moon druid at early level because it is their trademark.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Wow that was a long text to read, I guess not everyone s gonna read it. I read it all so you did not type it in vain. I like the explanation.
Still, I don't like the "for the duration" wording, it is not necessary for the spell to be understood. The duration could either refer to the casting of the spell or to the one that wasnt stated yet at the end of the spell. [1]It is because this duration wasn't stated yet that I toyed with the title of the thread stating it cannot heal per RAW even if the intend of the spell is obvious. If the 24 hours wasn't stated yet, then it had to obligatory refer to the one of the casting time. That was the game and people started to believe I was throlling with the click bait and everything, even if my intends were dead serious about discussing RAW and RAI.

Any way, that is a real nice explaination. I wish all DMs would let my goodberries heal for more but they probly won't bother to understand your great explanation and call it too strong [2] while it is in fact not game breaking after the first 2-3 so first levels. Goodberries are not really changing combats with an action required to eat it and 4 hp is not much in a turn, my wisdom gives that passively on a healing spell. And besides, I don't feel the need to cast goodberries until the players have no hit dices left to heal themselves and that means the campaing is hard and thus the improved goodberries become a good supplement. I'd rather keep my slot for versatility than to waste it on players that have still hit dices. Same with healing spirits. I see these spells as supplements for harder than normal campaigns that eats players hit dices. In fact, it is a boon to be able to have potent healing if all hit dices are gone, you can keep up more versatility this way.

So at what level is it op? At level 1 if human variant but you can cast it only once a day. At level 2 if you slowes down your level 2 spells progressions. At level 3 also it is still a bit gamebreaking if you can cast it a lot but as soon as you hit 4-5 level it starts to be more reasonable and at that moment there is also healing spirit, so you are keeping a level 2 slots or 2 of versatility instead but the hit dices start to provides more healing throughout the day any way because you can gain about 12-15 hp rolling 2 hit dice per short rest. Or you can burn them gaining over 20 in the first one. So it feels less relevant.

Basically, it looks insanely op out of combat for about the moment the moon druid looks insanely op in combats, but peoples dare not nerf the moon druid at early level because it is their trademark.
Thank you for reading. Brevity is not my strong suit.

[1] It can be confusing. If it helps, just keep in mind that the Duration listed in the attribute block of the spell always and only refers to the duration of the spell. If the spell has a non Instantaneous duration, the duration of the spell and the spell effect are normally the same. Instantaneous duration spells are always finished in an instant, but the effect of the spell can last for varying amounts of time. I don’t have a better word than duration for the effect effectiveness time.

[2] Goodberry is strong in the Hands of a Life Cleric, so I can understand a DM being leery allowing it for that reason. A typical standard array built cleric typically has a plus 3 wisdom bonus. So a 1st level Cure Wounds spell heals for 4 to 11 points of healing. Goodberry always provides 10 points of healing, spread across the 10 berries. Goodberry is more reliable healing, but not useful as an emergency heal in combat.

A 1st level Life Cleric with the same wisdom adds 3 more points of healing from DoL (2+spell level)
So Cure Wounds heals between 7 to 14 points. May heal more total than a Druid’s Goodberry, but the two spells can be seen to have some trade off and both be useful.

But a Life Cleric using DoL on Goodberry has created 40 points of healing. And with two 1st level spell slots, he could cast the spell again, creating 80 points of healing spread across 20 berries. By second level, a Life Cleric can do this, and still save his third 1st level slot for emergency combat healing.

Also, even though Goodberry has no additional effect at higher levels, DoL DOES. If you cast Goodberry using a second level spell slot, it counts as a second level spell. So each Goodberry would heal 5 points each, for 50 points of total healing. Each spell level adds one more point to each berry, until reaching 12 points per berry at 9th level, or 120 Hp total. Not saying that is the best use of a 9th level spell. But for comparison, a Cure Wounds at 9th level with DoL and Supreme Healing is doing only 88 points of healing (Assuming + 5 from Wisdom, Supreme Healing maximizes 9D8 to 72, and +11 from DoL)

Probably not game breaking, but I can see a DM not liking the result.

[NaughtyTiger]

To summarize:
Guy with a demonstrably tenuous grasp of the English language says the grammar of a spell is wrong.

77 posts later, he explains that the reason it is wrong it that there are 2 possible definitions for duration.

[Belier]

Thank you for reading. Brevity is not my strong suit.

[1] It can be confusing. If it helps, just keep in mind that the Duration listed in the attribute block of the spell always and only refers to the duration of the spell. If the spell has a non Instantaneous duration, the duration of the spell and the spell effect are normally the same. Instantaneous duration spells are always finished in an instant, but the effect of the spell can last for varying amounts of time. I don’t have a better word than duration for the effect effectiveness time.

[2] Goodberry is strong in the Hands of a Life Cleric, so I can understand a DM being leery allowing it for that reason. A typical standard array built cleric typically has a plus 3 wisdom bonus. So a 1st level Cure Wounds spell heals for 4 to 11 points of healing. Goodberry always provides 10 points of healing, spread across the 10 berries. Goodberry is more reliable healing, but not useful as an emergency heal in combat.

A 1st level Life Cleric with the same wisdom adds 3 more points of healing from DoL (2+spell level)
So Cure Wounds heals between 7 to 14 points. May heal more total than a Druid’s Goodberry, but the two spells can be seen to have some trade off and both be useful.

But a Life Cleric using DoL on Goodberry has created 40 points of healing. And with two 1st level spell slots, he could cast the spell again, creating 80 points of healing spread across 20 berries. By second level, a Life Cleric can do this, and still save his third 1st level slot for emergency combat healing.

Also, even though Goodberry has no additional effect at higher levels, DoL DOES. If you cast Goodberry using a second level spell slot, it counts as a second level spell. So each Goodberry would heal 5 points each, for 50 points of total healing. Each spell level adds one more point to each berry, until reaching 12 points per berry at 9th level, or 120 Hp total. Not saying that is the best use of a 9th level spell. But for comparison, a Cure Wounds at 9th level with DoL and Supreme Healing is doing only 88 points of healing (Assuming + 5 from Wisdom, Supreme Healing maximizes 9D8 to 72, and +11 from DoL)

Probably not game breaking, but I can see a DM not liking the result.

The only way to get 80 healing out of goodberry at level 1 is life cleric, human variant with magic initiate. You cast it before the long rest and after the short rest to have 20 berries for a day. You cannot use your spell slots to cast it and you cannot upcast it unless you multiclass to druid/ranger amd prepare it. Other wise, you have to wait at level 2 for a multiclassing and you will have 3 slots to cast it.

[BoringInfoGuy]

The only way to get 80 healing out of goodberry at level 1 is life cleric, human variant with magic initiate. You cast it before the long rest and after the short rest to have 20 berries for a day. You cannot use your spell slots to cast it and you cannot upcast it unless you multiclass to druid/ranger amd prepare it. Other wise, you have to wait at level 2 for a multiclassing and you will have 3 slots to cast it.

Opps, I had completely forgotten that Magic Initiate only let you cast the first level spell gained by the feat once per long rest at the lowest level possible. Apply my math to a Life Cleric 17 Druid 1 and I think it still works.

(Should have taken my advice from my first post and read the ability before posting)

On the other hand, I also missed that casting the 1st level spell with Magic Initiate does not take a spell slot.

[Belier]

Opps, I had completely forgotten that Magic Initiate only let you cast the first level spell gained by the feat once per long rest at the lowest level possible. Apply my math to a Life Cleric 17 Druid 1 and I think it still works.

(Should have taken my advice from my first post and read the ability before posting)

On the other hand, I also missed that casting the 1st level spell with Magic Initiate does not take a spell slot.

No problem, I forget somethings too even if I know almost everything the the phb by hearts.