Should they change Magic Initiate?

[diplomancer]

So, if the Tasha's feats are published in a similar way to the UA feats, Magic Initiate will be the "odd man out", the only feat that does NOT add the spells you learn with it to your spell list.

Should this be changed? I believe so, both for consistency and for balance reasons. What's your take?

[sayaijin]

I plan to errata it at my table. It always made more sense the way Tasha's words things - one less thing to track.

[Tanarii]

No. They should not change anything already published because of Tashas. This edition is supposed to be evergreen PHB, not constantly errata to fix non-errors so that I have to make sure all players with older PHBs have to print out errata first.

[cutlery]

No. They should not change anything already published because of Tashas. This edition is supposed to be evergreen PHB, not constantly errata to fix non-errors so that I have to make sure all players with older PHBs have to print out errata first.

There are already three pages of PHB errata. That isn't exactly evergreen.

[Tanarii]

There are already three pages of PHB errata. That isn't exactly evergreen.And ultimately, none of it really matters.

Drastically rewriting classes would.

[Segev]

And ultimately, none of it really matters.

Drastically rewriting classes would.

Changing one feat in an optional rule isn’t “dramatically rewriting classes.”

[cutlery]

Worrying about making a four or five year old book out of date is 20th century thinking. Rules were set in stone in 1989 because rapid cheap dissemination of changes wasn't possible.

[x3n0n]

No. They should not change anything already published because of Tashas. This edition is supposed to be evergreen PHB, not constantly errata to fix non-errors so that I have to make sure all players with older PHBs have to print out errata first.

If they had introduced an optional rule in Tasha's that said that Magic Initiate also allows you to use your spell slots to cast the spell (say, at the beginning of the "Feats" section), would that have been in-bounds?

(The PHB is silent to the point of being arguably underspecified, and Sage Advice made a ruling that is about as permissive as possible while staying within the PHB's text.)

[Tanarii]

Worrying about making a four or five year old book out of date is 20th century thinking. Rules were set in stone in 1989 because rapid cheap dissemination of changes wasn't possible.
5e evergreen policy is new 21st century thinking, in reaction to the old 21st century thinking of 3e and 4e.


If they had introduced an optional rule in Tasha's that said that Magic Initiate also allows you to use your spell slots to cast the spell (say, at the beginning of the "Feats" section), would that have been in-bounds?
I'm not a fan if it personally, but it'd be in keeping with what we're hearing about other Tasha variant rules, and the evergreen policy.

[MrCharlie]

The idea that they can't change rules text in the PHB to fix issues identified with it because it's "evergreen" is absurd. You can easily ignore the changes in old books, look up online changes and pencil them in, simply print out the errata, or otherwise go with whatever text is the most fun-same as always. The only issues arise when people are comparing different rules text from different versions, but the DM is there to arbitrate for a reason.

There is a lot in the PHB which should be updated, and Tasha's has provided a clear way to do some of that with what little text we already know-such as bladesingers version of extra attack (one attack may be a cantrip) being a quick and easy fix to eldritch knights war magic (which has severe problems due to using a bonus action and only being one attack) that enables it to achieve its design intent.

Magic initiate it merely a part of what should be fixed.

[Tanarii]

The idea that they can't change rules text in the PHB to fix issues identified with it because it's "evergreen" is absurd. You can easily ignore the changes in old books, look up online changes and pencil them in, simply print out the errata, or otherwise go with whatever text is the most fun-same as always. The only issues arise when people are comparing different rules text from different versions, but the DM is there to arbitrate for a reason.

We had two editions in which major backlash showed WotC it wasn't a good idea. That's why they had the evergreen policy in the first place.

[MaxWilson]

So, if the Tasha's feats are published in a similar way to the UA feats, Magic Initiate will be the "odd man out", the only feat that does NOT add the spells you learn with it to your spell list.

Should this be changed? I believe so, both for consistency and for balance reasons. What's your take?

Sure, why not. Even if you're not using Tasha's, Magic Initiate has no good reason to work differently than your regular spells. I'd even say the same thing about racial spells, like that Wood Elf Pass Without Trace feat, or DMG Eladrin's Misty Step. Keeping them a separate resource from your regular spell points/slots just makes the game more complicated for no good reason. Evidence: the fact that some people already run it the Tasha's way without ever realizing that they're not strictly compliant with RAW.

Previously you could have argued that changing the game away from RAW was more trouble than it's worth (every houserule has a complexity cost), and that argument is still valid, but especially if you're using Tasha's, this houserule also removes complexity at the same time.

[Anonymouswizard]

5e evergreen policy is new 21st century thinking, in reaction to the old 21st century thinking of 3e and 4e.

21st century thinking would be selling pdf copies of the rulebooks.

But the idea that 5e is evergreen is absurd, it's going to change eventually. A drop in sales or a change in ownership and/or the design team will convince somebody that a new edition. If they don't just release a new one in 2024 anyway. But even before that there's going to be changes, Tasha's already includes large patches with the new optional class abilities and race customisation, and some of those changes are going to make their way into the official play rules like race customisation has.

Most of us went into 5e knowing that like 4e and 3e before it it'll be changed and replaced, even if we didn't expect it to be as short a timescale. The changing has started, some people are already refusing to play by 5.0 rules and preparing to exclusively use 5.1. At some point the designers will decide to collapse the changes into a new PhB, the question now is how soon and will it just be a standification and making previously optional rules core, or will we get another full rewrite? Probably the former, and likely not to the extent of requiring a new DMG and MM as well.

[MaxWilson]

21st century thinking would be selling pdf copies of the rulebooks.

I sure hope you mean HTML/EPUB/MOBI (Kindle) copies. PDFs are... not ideal for reading/searching electronically.

[Anonymouswizard]

I sure hope you mean HTML/EPUB/MOBI (Kindle) copies. PDFs are... not ideal for reading/searching electronically.

I used pdf because it's industry standard. Ideally multiple file types would be available.

[Chronos]

You shouldn't interpret Magic Initiate that way because of Tasha's. You should interpret it that way because that interpretation makes more sense.

[Pex]

So, if the Tasha's feats are published in a similar way to the UA feats, Magic Initiate will be the "odd man out", the only feat that does NOT add the spells you learn with it to your spell list.

Should this be changed? I believe so, both for consistency and for balance reasons. What's your take?

Sage Advice says you don't add the spell, but that's not what the feat says. You know the spell. The feat allows you to cast it once without a spell slot. You know the spell. They won't change it because they say they won't change the PHB, but that's a lie. They already have. They changed the PHB on how Overchannel and Dragon Sorcerer works. They still might not, but it's out of stubbornness. You know the spell.

[MrCharlie]

We had two editions in which major backlash showed WotC it wasn't a good idea. That's why they had the evergreen policy in the first place.
Outside of some internet backlash the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 were positively received and have proven to be generally well thought out. 4e had bad press for many, many reasons, and errata was a limited but real part of that, yes, but not the primary part.

The online backlash to a rules change is inevitable. It is also irrelevant, because it is inevitable-and people complain about the current rules too. Complaints matter when they specify that something should be done differently-not when they are bleating that something was done at all.

Further, you can easily just never interact with minor changes and be fine. Most of the changes so far are how specific feats, class features, or spells work-not how actions, bonus actions, or entire classes of spells work. The scale of changes in the errata is dwarfed by at least an order of magnitude compared to the changes between 3.0 to 3.5 or anything comparable.

[Kireban]

Healing word as a known spell on every caster is a little...

[HappyDaze]

Healing word as a known spell on every caster is a little...

...like the last game I ran. OK, it was only 3/4 of them with healing word (and the one without was a Paladin). Incredibly survivable group.

[Pex]

Healing word as a known spell on every caster is a little...

. . . nothing of a problem. Your casting modifier depends on where you get it, so you run into MAD issues. Sorcerer originally could only get it via feat but can now do it without the feat. A wizard has much better uses of his spells. Besides which, instead of a feat a character could multiclass and get the spell anyway along with everything else multiclass brings. Divination wizards are not dipping into Knowledge Domain clerics because they're so desperate to get Healing Word.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You shouldn't interpret Magic Initiate that way because of Tasha's. You should interpret it that way because that interpretation makes more sense.

I always interpreted it as adding to spell knownl/always prepared.

[Snownine]

I plan on letting Magic Initiate work the way the new feats do, to help it be more competitive and more worth the ASI investment. What about making it a half feat like the new Tasha feats? Do you guys think that would be too much? I know Magic Initiate gives you at will powers in the form of cantrips where as the new ones only give you resource dependent spells, but one of those spells is a level two. I just want to help insure Magic Initiate remains competitive and attractive alongside the new feats.

[Chronos]

From what I've seen, the cantrips are usually the primary reason to take MI, so it probably still is balanced against the new feats. There are some cases where a new feat is better, and some where MI is better. The cases where the new feats are better might be a bit more common, but the cases for MI are still common enough.

[kazaryu]

No. They should not change anything already published because of Tashas. This edition is supposed to be evergreen PHB, not constantly errata to fix non-errors so that I have to make sure all players with older PHBs have to print out errata first.

sooo...instead of updating old stuff so that it can keep up with the new, you'd rather that character options from the phb are instead made obsolete?

power creep is still a thing, even in 5e. i get that it was *meant* to be 'evergreen' but that only holds if everything made after gets built around what is balanced in the phb...which it hasn't. want some direct comparisons?

hexblade: yay, now cha gishes can be SAD. **** you for trying to gish as any other full caster though.
college of swords bards: hey! cool things you can do when you hit with an attack, powered by a limited pool of dice that scales. but wait, at level 14 you can now do it at-will using a smaller die? **** you battlemaster,
shepard druid: hey there life cleric. you know that piddly 2+spell level extra healing you get. its so cute, you can heal the primary target(s) of your spell for (at most) 11 extra hit points? **** you, i can heal everyone for up to 20 hp off of a single level 1 spell cast.... all it costs is a short rest resource.

there are (im sure) other examples, this is just off the top of my head. but let me clarify, my point is that these are objective examples of power creep. if power creep exists, the ideal of 'evergreen phb' is inherently unattainable.

[Anonymouswizard]

They hadn't worked out how to make Fighter subclasses by the time the PhB was released, finally getting two worth taking was the primary reason I bought Xanathar's (alongside a proper domain for Clerics of death gods). Once again most of the big imbalances come from the core rulebook, although with subclasses the problems are more shopping the lines of being too weak or two user unfriendly (looking at you Wild Magic Sorcerer).

I'm heavily in favour of a 5.1 in the next few years. Not releasing an entire new core set or making the current set of books obsolete, Is just like an updated PhB with the major problems tweaked and the new Race rules built in.

On the plus side, I'm not aware of 5e having run into the air breathing mermaid problem.

[Tanarii]

sooo...instead of updating old stuff so that it can keep up with the new, you'd rather that character options from the phb are instead made obsolete?Theres a huge assumption here. That new stuff will automatically be used at all tables.

The only assumed content we have is the original PHB. Which is the entire point. One book to buy, and it doesn't matter when you bought it, you can play together.

[kazaryu]

Theres a huge assumption here. That new stuff will automatically be used at all tables.

The only assumed content we have is the original PHB. Which is the entire point. One book to buy, and it doesn't matter when you bought it, you can play together.

thats....not a huge assumption. its a fairly safe bet. obviously DMs aren't obligated to allow new stuff, but thats beside the point. this discussion is framed around the comparison to the new stuff. if you're at a table that doesn't use the new stuff, you won't d/l the errata, because it has no purpose. meanwhile, people that actually use the new stuff, would have some official 'rules' to keep the old stuff relevant.

Now, if i've misunderstood your point, and you're only opposed to them *selling* 'updated' phb's. thats one thing. obviously that would lead to problems.

but releasing a free errata document? in no way does that interfere with the people that don't want to use it. just say 'no errata' at the same time you're telling them 'no non-phb'. it adds no work to you, while addressing the issues for everyone else.

[Tanarii]

thats....not a huge assumption. its a fairly safe bet. obviously DMs aren't obligated to allow new stuff, but thats beside the point. this discussion is framed around the comparison to the new stuff. if you're at a table that doesn't use the new stuff, you won't d/l the errata, because it has no purpose. meanwhile, people that actually use the new stuff, would have some official 'rules' to keep the old stuff relevant.

Now, if i've misunderstood your point, and you're only opposed to them *selling* 'updated' phb's. thats one thing. obviously that would lead to problems.

but releasing a free errata document? in no way does that interfere with the people that don't want to use it. just say 'no errata' at the same time you're telling them 'no non-phb'. it adds no work to you, while addressing the issues for everyone else.

It is a huge assumption. And yes my point has nothing to do with downloading documents. It has to do with someone who joined a game store run game 2 weeks ago and just purchased the PHB being compatible with someone who purchased their PHB 2 years ago. And the latter not having to buy a new PHB to keep playing.

Releasing new variant rules in a new variant rules book? I don't like that they're rapidly become the assumed default by many players due to the stamp of officialness (a la Feats and Multiclassing), but that's my problem.

[kazaryu]

And yes my point has nothing to do with downloading documents. It has to do with someone who joined a game store run game 2 weeks ago and just purchased the PHB being compatible with someone who purchased their PHB 2 years ago. And the latter not having to buy a new PHB to keep playing.

Releasing new variant rules in a new variant rules book? I don't like that they're rapidly become the assumed default by many players due to the stamp of officialness (a la Feats and Multiclassing), but that's my problem.

that makes sense. but i don't think that's what anyone is suggesting. as it stands there's an errata document that is downloadable, and i think people are talking about using that to update classes. i think most people would agree with you that completely reprinting the book, and asking people to purchase the update would be excessive.

[MrCharlie]

It is a huge assumption. And yes my point has nothing to do with downloading documents. It has to do with someone who joined a game store run game 2 weeks ago and just purchased the PHB being compatible with someone who purchased their PHB 2 years ago. And the latter not having to buy a new PHB to keep playing.

Releasing new variant rules in a new variant rules book? I don't like that they're rapidly become the assumed default by many players due to the stamp of officialness (a la Feats and Multiclassing), but that's my problem.
The problem with this logic is that the errata is downloadable and free, compiled into easily accessible lists, and relatively minor in scope. Little if any of it is going to break a class completely if you has a disagreement, and that little is generally a positive for the player. And further, people can and do share PHB's-my old copy has sticky notes with the reprintings that have proved relevant in it, it wasn't hard to do.

And feats and multiclassing have always been an assumed default. I've not seen anyone play without them. Well, feats, at least, I have seen multiclassing banned by old 3e hands-but this actually proves that your point isn't valid, if the DM doesn't want to play with some rule as long as he's upfront about it there should be no problems.

[Segev]

There is nothing "non-evergreen" about having optional alterations to things in the PHB in books that have new material. If you are using the PHB alone, you don't have those books, so you don't care about anything in them. If you've got the new books, and you're using options from them, then having optional changes to things in the PHB to offer more tools for tweaking and tuning balance is not an issue. You have the book, after all.

[Pex]

that makes sense. but i don't think that's what anyone is suggesting. as it stands there's an errata document that is downloadable, and i think people are talking about using that to update classes. i think most people would agree with you that completely reprinting the book, and asking people to purchase the update would be excessive.

I disagree. That is essentially what happened with 3E -> 3.5E. People complained, but the game wasn't ruined. It was improved. That doesn't guarantee 5E -> 5.5E won't have publicity problems, but neither will it automatically have them. People will complain regardless. In fact, 5E already printed a PHB that was different than originally published changing particular rules, such as Evoker Overchannel and Dragon Sorcerer interacting with spells like Scorching Ray.

Going on past UA and what we know it appears Tasha is changing base game rules. We know racial modifiers are changing. We suspect UA class changes of altnerative class abilities or flexibility in changing choices made as you level will be there. It's "optional" so that technically people aren't obligated and they don't have to call it 5.5E. Some people will refuse to call it 5.5E. I came up with 5TE. 5E is changing, in some ways people like/don't like and in other ways it's not people wished it did. (PHB Socerers not getting subclass spells, Likely no skill table DCs :smallwink:) In general people are excited about the Tasha book hoping it won't suck overall even if not liking something specific already known to be in it. I suspect the percentage of players who prefer the Tasha book not to have been published at all let 5E stay as it is forever and ever to be low.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree. That is essentially what happened with 3E -> 3.5E. People complained, but the game wasn't ruined. It was improved. That doesn't guarantee 5E -> 5.5E won't have publicity problems, but neither will it automatically have them. People will complain regardless. In fact, 5E already printed a PHB that was different than originally published changing particular rules, such as Evoker Overchannel and Dragon Sorcerer interacting with spells like Scorching Ray.

Going on past UA and what we know it appears Tasha is changing base game rules. We know racial modifiers are changing. We suspect UA class changes of altnerative class abilities or flexibility in changing choices made as you level will be there. It's "optional" so that technically people aren't obligated and they don't have to call it 5.5E. Some people will refuse to call it 5.5E. I came up with 5TE. 5E is changing, in some ways people like/don't like and in other ways it's not people wished it did. (PHB Socerers not getting subclass spells, Likely no skill table DCs :smallwink:) In general people are excited about the Tasha book hoping it won't suck overall even if not liking something specific already known to be in it. I suspect the percentage of players who prefer the Tasha book not to have been published at all let 5E stay as it is forever and ever to be low.

But Tasha's only changes things of, and to the degree that, DMs include it. You shouldn't assume that all printed books are in play unless the DM says they are. And even the PHB isn't guaranteed to be entirely intact (especially races). Unlike 3e to 3.5, where they reprinted the core books and noted that the new ones replaced the old. These are optional, modular rules. Not universal changes to core rules.

[Kane0]

They should at least modify it to include the Artificer list instead of making a whole new feat just for that.

Edit: To get really drastic it could just be reimagined and combined with the Shadow/Fey touched feats.

Pick one cantrip, one 1st and one 2nd level spell all from the same school. All get added as known/to your list and can cast the levelled ones once per long rest. No stat boost.

[cutlery]

The only assumed content we have is the original PHB.

Sooner or later the changes will be massive enough a new SRD will be released; then it's over.

[x3n0n]

I think it would be reasonable to "shoot for" a 2024 release of a new PHB, with all of the learning they will have done by then. I don't care whether they call it 5.5e or 6e or 5e-prime.

If they continue in the current direction (stable "running the game" rules, low-to-medium PC power creep vs 5e PHB, and first-party adventures/campaigns pitched at low-to-medium difficulty), "6e" could be entirely backwards-compatible with published 5e adventures, which helps leverage their market position.

[Pex]

But Tasha's only changes things of, and to the degree that, DMs include it. You shouldn't assume that all printed books are in play unless the DM says they are. And even the PHB isn't guaranteed to be entirely intact (especially races). Unlike 3e to 3.5, where they reprinted the core books and noted that the new ones replaced the old. These are optional, modular rules. Not universal changes to core rules.

Yes, but the point is since Tasha is offering options that change the base game people will like so people aren't auto-opposed to the idea of changes to the base game. If they do publish a new 5E PHB with changes (5.5E even if not an official title) I don't think it will be a disastrous scream-a-thon (my words) as others here believe it would be.

There will be people who don't want to spend the money again and complain about that. 5E's advantage over 3E is it's only one book invalidated, the PHB, one and a half if they include a chapter for Xanathar changes. 3E had many splat books published before 3.5 came out that became useless. Having to rebuy books was a relevant complaint back then.

[MaxWilson]

The only assumed content we have is the original PHB.

Don't you mean "in the Basic Rules"?

I had an experience recently that reminded me that classes like druids and warlocks, and subclasses like necromancers, are technically optional. I wonder how many people play without them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but the point is since Tasha is offering options that change the base game people will like so people aren't auto-opposed to the idea of changes to the base game. If they do publish a new 5E PHB with changes (5.5E even if not an official title) I don't think it will be a disastrous scream-a-thon (my words) as others here believe it would be.

There will be people who don't want to spend the money again and complain about that. 5E's advantage over 3E is it's only one book invalidated, the PHB, one and a half if they include a chapter for Xanathar changes. 3E had many splat books published before 3.5 came out that became useless. Having to rebuy books was a relevant complaint back then.

I don't see how adding optional, modular rules is "changing the base game". It's certainly not invalidating any option from the PHB--anyone who says so is only looking at mechanical effectiveness, not thematics (ie the new sorcerers don't fit the vast majority of concepts I'd like to play, so their added spells are just plain moot and irrelevant for me). The "base game" (as much as that has any meaning at all) isn't changing, all we're doing is adding new modular content. Yes, some of the pieces overwrite (optionally) the stuff printed in the PHB (alternate class features, etc). But those aren't rewrites--you can use either set. Or both sets on different characters at the same table. They're alternatives. And they only change content, not rules. They don't alter the core resolution mechanics or the turn order/action structure, etc. They're just new plug-and-play content options.

Unlike 3.5e, which said "don't use those rules, use these ones instead." Including changing core features of how basic keywords worked. Or 4e's copious errata, which literally said "no, that text actually says XYZ". Going from 3.0 to 3.5 was (to use your favorite phrase :smallwink:) like having to relearn the game. Taking material from one to the other required significant and lossy translation. Using the current 5e model, you can have a table where one person is playing a PHB ranger and one is playing a Tasha's-altered one. At the same table, without rules conflict. Because the core rules themselves (the action resolution system and turn structure) are unchanged. And if you take a character from a PHB-only game to a +Tasha's one, you don't have to change anything at all. PHB + Tasha's is a strict superset of PHB only.

Tasha's hangs new pieces on the same framework. 3.5e changed the framework. Those aren't remotely comparable.


Don't you mean "in the Basic Rules"?

I had an experience recently that reminded me that classes like druids and warlocks, and subclasses like necromancers, are technically optional. I wonder how many people play without them.

Technically, everything (classes and races included) is optional. You could play a game of 5e where none of the PHB "player option" chapters are in use. None of the races, feats, spells, classes, or backgrounds. Where all of that is custom written. And assuming it was done with care, it would be fully compatible with any other game if the core ruleset (the action resolution mechanics, the turn structure, ability scores, etc) are preserved.

Content is content, and content is optional. The core rules are what has to remain true for compatibility. If one table is rolling dice pools for their attack rolls and another is doing d20 + mods vs TN, those two aren't (very) compatible. But if one table uses [Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard] as options and the other uses [Warlock/Ranger/Barbarian/Druid], those two are compatible. The characters could interact in the same world and adventures, despite drawing from different content.

[greenstone]

I think they should change the feat. They should add a prerequiste of "not a spellcaster". :smallsmile:

[Amdy_vill]

We had two editions in which major backlash showed WotC it wasn't a good idea. That's why they had the evergreen policy in the first place.

Look man you just wrong. they have massively changed the base rules with errata already. and to get back to the topic at hand I believe there was a piece of sage advice(Not errata) that clarified that magic initiate and machines like it did add to you learned spells. 99% sure on that, I think neadimergant made a video on it.

[Pex]

I don't see how adding optional, modular rules is "changing the base game". It's certainly not invalidating any option from the PHB--anyone who says so is only looking at mechanical effectiveness, not thematics (ie the new sorcerers don't fit the vast majority of concepts I'd like to play, so their added spells are just plain moot and irrelevant for me). The "base game" (as much as that has any meaning at all) isn't changing, all we're doing is adding new modular content. Yes, some of the pieces overwrite (optionally) the stuff printed in the PHB (alternate class features, etc). But those aren't rewrites--you can use either set. Or both sets on different characters at the same table. They're alternatives. And they only change content, not rules. They don't alter the core resolution mechanics or the turn order/action structure, etc. They're just new plug-and-play content options.

Unlike 3.5e, which said "don't use those rules, use these ones instead." Including changing core features of how basic keywords worked. Or 4e's copious errata, which literally said "no, that text actually says XYZ". Going from 3.0 to 3.5 was (to use your favorite phrase :smallwink:) like having to relearn the game. Taking material from one to the other required significant and lossy translation. Using the current 5e model, you can have a table where one person is playing a PHB ranger and one is playing a Tasha's-altered one. At the same table, without rules conflict. Because the core rules themselves (the action resolution system and turn structure) are unchanged. And if you take a character from a PHB-only game to a +Tasha's one, you don't have to change anything at all. PHB + Tasha's is a strict superset of PHB only.

Tasha's hangs new pieces on the same framework. 3.5e changed the framework. Those aren't remotely comparable.



This subdiscussion is not about Tasha at all. It's about the hypothetical reprinting of the PHB with lots of changes, presumably accumulated from Sage Advice, surveys, and their own choice of feeling like it that makes the game 5.5E. The only thing Tasha has to do with it is showing that because Tasha offers options that change the base rules, this hypothetical 5.5E won't be an awful thing others think it would be.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, if the Tasha's feats are published in a similar way to the UA feats, Magic Initiate will be the "odd man out", the only feat that does NOT add the spells you learn with it to your spell list. Should this be changed? I believe so, both for consistency and for balance reasons. What's your take? I like MI as originally written, but it would make sense to add it to your spell list if your class is a spell casting class. (If it isn't, that one spell becomes your spell list. :) What we ended up doing was treating the spell like a level 1 "mystic aracnum" or Invocation spell (like the Polymorph invocation) once per long rest, spell known, for the feat taker and that removed the confusion. As I look at the feat and the SA explanation I think we were on the right track.

MAGIC INITIATE
Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard.
1. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class’s spell list.
2. In addition, choose one 1st-level spell from that same list. You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again. {The limit (long rest) on casting the 1st level spell applies only to the casting given by the feat}.
3. Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends on the class you chose: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid: or Intelligence for wizard.
The prepared versus known wasn't directly addressed, and so SA addressed that.

If a druid takes the Magic Initiate feat and chooses detect magic as their one spell, can the druid cast that spell as a ritual? A druid’s Ritual Casting requires a ritual to be prepared. The spell from Magic Initiate is known but not prepared. Because druids, and Clerics, have to prepare a spell inorder for it to be used as a ritual, this distinction between "known" and "Prepared" needed to be further explained, because digging that all out from the various class spell casting features required a bit of research and cross referenceing.
In the original feat it does not say "this becomes a known spell, not a prepared spell, for your character" - and it's a good thing they didn't do that, because of what follows.

If you have spell slots, can you use them to cast the 1st-level spell you learn with the Magic Initiate feat?
Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes.
For example, if you pick sorcerer and you are a sorcerer, the Spellcasting feature for that class tells you that you can use your spell slots to cast the sorcerer spells you know, so you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate. Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare. In short, you must follow your character’s normal spellcasting rules, which determine whether you can expend spell slots on the 1st-level spell you learn from Magic Initiate.
This implies that if your character does not have the spell casting feature, then you have a spell known (not prepared) and two cantrips. How this works out with a Paladin who takes the Cleric Magic initiate feat (both classes prepare spells) I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
We had two editions in which major backlash showed WotC it wasn't a good idea. That's why they had the evergreen policy in the first place. Yep.

Releasing new variant rules in a new variant rules book? I don't like that they're rapidly become the assumed default by many players due to the stamp of officialness (a la Feats and Multiclassing), but that's my problem. I just began to play in another campaign that was like my first one: no vHuman. I made a human anyway. :smallbiggrin:


Look man you just wrong. they have massively changed the base rules with errata already. and to get back to the topic at hand I believe there was a piece of sage advice(Not errata) that clarified that magic initiate and machines like it did add to you learned spells. 99% sure on that, I think neadimergant made a video on it. Uh, what?

[Kane0]

I think they should change the feat. They should add a prerequiste of "not a spellcaster". :smallsmile:

Oh now thats a good one

[JackPhoenix]

Sage Advice says you don't add the spell, but that's not what the feat says. You know the spell. The feat allows you to cast it once without a spell slot. You know the spell. They won't change it because they say they won't change the PHB, but that's a lie. They already have. They changed the PHB on how Overchannel and Dragon Sorcerer works. They still might not, but it's out of stubbornness. You know the spell.

Sure, you know the spell. But that won't help you much... to cast, say, wizard spells, you'll need to have a level in wizard class that gives you wizard-specific spellcasting feature (or EK/AT). There's a reason why class features that give you a new spell usually say something like "[the spell] counts as [class] spell for you". MI doesn't have any wording like that.