Imbue Item ignoring prereqs y/n

[Raishoiken]

12th level warlocks get to make UMD checks to ignore spell knowledge prereqs when making magic items. This does not allow them to ignore the xp component as a part of that process, does it?

For an example pulled from the discussion starter: warlocks crafting items of wish at the same price as an item holding a 9th level spell that didnt have an xp component like meteor swarm

Asking to clarify a misunderstanding/to continue a deraily conversation in a proper thread

[Crake]

The ability is fairly clear, the only prerequisites it allows you to bypass are spell prerequisites. You still need to pay the associated costs (gold and xp), as well as have any required feats, skills, or other abilities that are in the item's prerequisites.

Wait, I think I understand your question more clearly now. You're talking about when ignoring spells with xp components. The answer remains no, you must still pay the xp component, as that is added onto the item's cost, and is not a function if expending the spell slot during the crafting process (otherwise a scroll of wish, which takes 4 days to craft, would actually cost 20,000xp, 5,000 for each day of crafting, but that's not how it works).

To clarify, when you expend a spell slot as part of crafting, you're not actually casting the spell, and need not pay any material or xp components when expending the spell slot, those are instead incorporated into the crafting costs of the item. This, for example, also prevents a creature with an SLA of a spell with a component cost from creating incredibly cheap items with those spells. An efreeti crafting a scroll of wish for example would still need to pay the 5,000xp crafting cost.

[redking]

Imbue Item (Su): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). He can substitute a Use Magic Device check (DC 15 + spell level for arcane spells or 25 + spell level for divine spells) in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast.

If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell.

You might have the impression that a 12th level warlock can imbue item without the costs of 'casting' the spell, but the item creation rules say differently (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm).


The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Here is an example of a spellcasting character also not actually casting the spell, but still having to pay the costs. The item creation rules for other types of items also call out an XP cost for the spells, if the spells have an XP cost.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho, when you start the crafting process of a magic item the required spell is being "passively" cast. Because the crafting descriptions say that they are "triggered" and not "consumed". "Triggered" indicated a clear cast in this chase imho.

The act of writing triggers the prepared spell
As such you pay specific spell xp and material components when the "spell cast" is triggered.


If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell.

It doesn't say "as if he had the spell prepared".
It doesn't say "as if he had expanded a spellslot and would know the spell".
It doesn't say "as if the right spell had been triggered".

It says clearly "as if he had cast the spell". The point where XP and material components are already consumed.

[Raishoiken]

Imho, when you start the crafting process of a magic item the required spell is being "passively" cast. Because the crafting descriptions say that they are "triggered" and not "consumed". "Triggered" indicated a clear cast in this chase imho.

Thats the thing though, that is entirely an opinion and a dm would be reasonable to say thats how it works in their campaign.

Unfortunately, it remains an opinion. If they wanted the spells to be cast during the process they would have said so, and clearly so. Instead, we have several places that say that the spells are, in fact, not actually being cast in all of the descriptions.


Check the other posters responses for more detail as to why

[Gruftzwerg]

Thats the thing though, that is entirely an opinion and a dm would be reasonable to say thats how it works in their campaign.

Unfortunately, it remains an opinion. If they wanted the spells to be cast during the process they would have said so, and clearly so. Instead, we have several places that say that the spells are, in fact, not actually being cast in all of the descriptions.


Check the other posters responses for more detail as to why

If you assume that the spells are not being cast (in the crafting process), we are at the point I mentioned earlier: "Imbue Item" becomes totally nonfunctional, because it "casts the spell" and that doesn't help with the requirements that your interpretation would imply.
As, said I can see RAW arguments where Imbue Items becomes totally nonfunctional. But since that interpretation is not the sole valid way to interpret the ability, I prefer the interpretation that causes less dysfunction (but has more cheese ^^ ).

edit: typo / gramma

[Raishoiken]

If you assume that the spells are not being cast (in the crafting process), we are at the point I mentioned earlier: "Imbue Item" becomes totally nonfunctional, because it "casts the spell" and that doesn't help with the requirements that your interpretation would imply.

No, imbue item does not cast the spell. Imbue item says as if it were cast. And so do the crafting sections. It works no different except instead of knowing the spell you make a roll. So there is no dysfunction, it works just fine

[Darg]

I think both views are valid and are legal readings by RAW. On one hand you have rules that require everything to be provided and consumed the moment you start writing and doesn't actually cast a spell. On the other you have a class feature that uses the past tense to describe something that happens in a moment and is not what is needed to create an item.

Casting a spell in the past tense implies all components were provided already as not having the components implies failure. In this way the Warlock would not have to provide the components of the spell.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think both views are valid and are legal readings by RAW. On one hand you have rules that require everything to be provided and consumed the moment you start writing and doesn't actually cast a spell. On the other you have a class feature that uses the past tense to describe something that happens in a moment and is not what is needed to create an item.

Casting a spell in the past tense implies all components were provided already as not having the components implies failure. In this way the Warlock would not have to provide the components of the spell.

That is what I tried to say. By RAW, since we "fake the spell being cast", we fake all other aspects of a cast spell. This includes all components (V,S,M,F) needed. That the crafting process says "triggered" is another indicator is that the spell is being cast by a passive spell trigger of the craft ability.

Further:

If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself.
The costs of making the scroll itself doesn't "increase". The extra costs for "if you would cast the spell" are in "addition" to the normal item cost. This means that the additional costs are all part of the spell cast (be it triggered or faked).

[icefractal]

It's somewhat ambiguous, but I think the case for "the cost is added rather than paid as part of casting" is a bit stronger.

In the general rules for magic items, there's this.

In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components or with XP components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. Each XP in the component costs adds 5 gp to the market price. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost and the base XP cost (both determined by the base price) plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.
That's pretty general, but does phrase it as an addition to the cost, not a separate cost.

Then the use of components varies by type of item, but they're always paid as a lump sum up front, even with things like Wands where you aren't consuming any spell slots and you certainly aren't casting 50 of the spell in a single day.
Rings, Staffs, Wands: Consumes the slot(s) each day it's worked on, and consumes 50x the components once at the start.
Armor/Weapons, Rods, Wondrous Items: Consumes the slot(s) each day it's worked on, does not consume any components.
Potions, Scrolls: Consumes the slot once, requires the components once, regardless of how many days it takes.

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between number of times the slot was expended and number of components consumed, except for Potions and Scrolls.

[Gruftzwerg]

It's somewhat ambiguous, but I think the case for "the cost is added rather than paid as part of casting" is a bit stronger.

In the general rules for magic items, there's this.

That's pretty general, but does phrase it as an addition to the cost, not a separate cost.

Then the use of components varies by type of item, but they're always paid as a lump sum up front, even with things like Wands where you aren't consuming any spell slots and you certainly aren't casting 50 of the spell in a single day.
Rings, Staffs, Wands: Consumes the slot(s) each day it's worked on, and consumes 50x the components once at the start.
Armor/Weapons, Rods, Wondrous Items: Consumes the slot(s) each day it's worked on, does not consume any components.
Potions, Scrolls: Consumes the slot once, requires the components once, regardless of how many days it takes.

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between number of times the slot was expended and number of components consumed, except for Potions and Scrolls.
I would still argue that they (crafting feats) are "specific" spell casts being "triggered", with "specific rules" for their components (V,S,M,F).

Imbue Item lets you fake the spell being cast. As such, it still covers the components needed for completing the cast (V,S,M,F). It doesn't just fake the expense of a spellslot / prepared spell. It fakes the entire spell being cast.

[Raishoiken]

I would still argue that they (crafting feats) are "specific" spell casts being "triggered", with "specific rules" for their components (V,S,M,F).

Imbue Item lets you fake the spell being cast. As such, it still covers the components needed for completing the cast (V,S,M,F). It doesn't just fake the expense of a spellslot / prepared spell. It fakes the entire spell being cast.

You cant really argue that they are specific ways to cast the spell without houseruling it. Everywhere in magic item creation explicitly references that you are not everytime the topic is brought up.

Sure, a slot is expended, as if you had. If you were actually casting it, the words "as if you had" would not appear because there would be no need for a distinction

Icefractal pointed out that it's even shown that you arent paying for the xp each day you work on the item, which would only make sense if ylu actually were doing some sort of casting.
In fact, by your logic it would seem like you shoul pay less xp component if the item itself has a quicker crafting time since you dont have to cast the spell as many times.

Thia is not the case. The xp is paid for at the very beginning of the construction process, on the first day.


Edit: Also as a bonus round. Warlock crafts the item as if you did cast the spell, which means that you follow the same crafting steps and formulas for the item as if it were normal

[Gruftzwerg]

You cant really argue that they are specific ways to cast the spell without houseruling it. Everywhere in magic item creation explicitly references that you are not everytime the topic is brought up.
...
"Specific" ways to cast spells:
- scrolls, wands, rods...
- UMD scrolls, wands, rods..
- SLA
- contingency (spell)
- Arcane Fusion
- metamagic for spontaneous spellcasters
....

We have enough other chases of "specific" ways to cast a spell that don't follow the general rules.

Crafting magic items is just another specific way how a "spell cast" is being passively "triggered".

And the warlock fakes that "spell cast". And a spell cast can only be faked if all conditions are fulfilled for the "cast" (V,S,M,F). Again pointing out that the ability doesn't limit itself only to the "expanded" spellslot /prepared spell.

[icefractal]

And a spell cast can only be faked if all conditions are fulfilled for the "cast" (V,S,M,F). Again pointing out that the ability doesn't limit itself only to the "expanded" spellslot /prepared spell.But that's not true for anything but scrolls and potions.

A wand or staff always costs 50x the components, but takes a variable amount of time to craft. So for example, a Wand of Stoneskin (CL 20th) requires expending the slot 60 times, but only requires paying for the component (diamond dust) 50 times. Which means that obviously the crafting doesn't require that "all conditions are fulfilled" for each time the spell is 'cast', else it would cost an extra 2500 gp.

I don't see how this makes the ability nonfunctional though. It lets you ignore the crafting requirements of "having spell slots" and "knowing the particular spells" - everything else works as normal.

[Raishoiken]

But that's not true for anything but scrolls and potions.

A wand or staff always costs 50x the components, but takes a variable amount of time to craft. So for example, a Wand of Stoneskin (CL 20th) requires expending the slot 60 times, but only requires paying for the component (diamond dust) 50 times. Which means that obviously the crafting doesn't require that "all conditions are fulfilled" for each time the spell is 'cast', else it would cost an extra 2500 gp.

I don't see how this makes the ability nonfunctional though. It lets you ignore the crafting requirements of "having spell slots" and "knowing the particular spells" - everything else works as normal.

This. There is literally nothing that even pretends to hint at the fact that you ignore the xp or material component

[Gruftzwerg]

But that's not true for anything but scrolls and potions.

A wand or staff always costs 50x the components, but takes a variable amount of time to craft. So for example, a Wand of Stoneskin (CL 20th) requires expending the slot 60 times, but only requires paying for the component (diamond dust) 50 times. Which means that obviously the crafting doesn't require that "all conditions are fulfilled" for each time the spell is 'cast', else it would cost an extra 2500 gp.

I don't see how this makes the ability nonfunctional though. It lets you ignore the crafting requirements of "having spell slots" and "knowing the particular spells" - everything else works as normal.


This. There is literally nothing that even pretends to hint at the fact that you ignore the xp or material component

Both "specific" exceptions that alter the general rules for XP and material components for casting a spell. The other craft options also "trigger" "spell casts". As far as I see it, crafting only uses specific spell component rules. "Triggering" a spell cast indicates these altered rules.

[icefractal]

What general rules? Wondrous Items and Rods don't even use the components at all, and the closest thing to a general statement on crafting items was the one I posted above.

If you're aware of some rules text that says the component cost is directly a result of casting the spell that many times, please post it, because I'm not seeing anything which does say that and a lot of things that contradict it.

An example in the other direction, an (arcane) Wand of Identify costs 5750 gp and takes one day to craft, therefore only one "casting" of Identify (100 gp). If the component cost is a result of casting the spell during crafting, then what's the other 4900 gp for?

[Gruftzwerg]

the crafting feats make use of "trigger" and "spell cast". Casting a spell



A spell’s components are what you must do or possess to cast it. The Components entry in a spell description includes abbreviations that tell you what type of components it has. Specifics for material, focus, and XP components are given at the end of the descriptive text.

1. The general rule for "spell casts" involve that you provide the components.

2. Crafting feats make use of the terms "trigger(ing)" a "spell". As such they describe a specific form of casting spells.

3. This is further confirmed by the wording of the "Imbue Item" ability which lets you use UMD to count as if you had "cast the spell" (not sole expended a slot/prepared spell). As such, we can confirm that:
a) crafting is a specific type of casting
b) any (even altered) spell components are faked by Imbue Item.

4. The magic item/crafting costs are another indicator.

If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself.
It doesn't say "increase the costs by XYZ". It says "in addition to" and thus ads another cost value/variable you have to pay. These are the altered spell component costs and not the cost for "making the scroll itself". The item in the end has a "total price" and the rules explain how extra component costs for the spell can be added "in addition to" the costs for "making the items itself."


The crafting process triggers the "spell" and a spell always has components (general). You can have specific exceptions (e.g. SLA, a specific form/subcategory of "spells"; metamagic like silent/still spell..) and crafting feats also are just another specific exception to those general rules (for spells). They alter the general rules for spells for their niche (crafting). As such "specific beats general". Imbue Item does fake spells being cast for crafting purposes and as such fake any components.

[Telonius]

Here's the full paragraph from the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls) about creating scrolls:


The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

I think the bolded part is the key phrase there. In creating the scroll, the XP payment happens at the beginning. When you write the spell, it's cast; but that's after the XP payment happens. Imbue Item only substitutes a UMD check for casting the spell, so I think it has no effect on the usual rules for paying XP, or using focus or material components.

Each of the magic item types has similar (but not identical) text in the descriptions. For example, here's the text for Wondrous Items:


If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

So you wouldn't need to pay the XP cost that you would if you had cast the prerequisite spell directly. (An XP component may still have an impact on the total XP you pay, based on how much it affects the base price; you just wouldn't need to pay the cost of casting the spell on top of that).

[Gruftzwerg]

Here's the full paragraph from the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls) about creating scrolls:



I think the bolded part is the key phrase there. In creating the scroll, the XP payment happens at the beginning. When you write the spell, it's cast; but that's after the XP payment happens. Imbue Item only substitutes a UMD check for casting the spell, so I think it has no effect on the usual rules for paying XP, or using focus or material components.

Each of the magic item types has similar (but not identical) text in the descriptions. For example, here's the text for Wondrous Items:



So you wouldn't need to pay the XP cost that you would if you had cast the prerequisite spell directly. (An XP component may still have an impact on the total XP you pay, based on how much it affects the base price; you just wouldn't need to pay the cost of casting the spell on top of that).
Imho you are ignoring this part:

The act of writing triggers the prepared spell
If a spell gets triggered, it gets cast (even if just passively). As said, if they would have only expended the prepared spell/slot, then yeah, it wouldn't work. But the part about triggered spells is there. Imbue Item fakes the cast and the crafting feats refer to spells being triggered = passively cast. As such, they describe a "specific" form of casting a spell.
Imbue Items further confirms this by giving you the ability to fake the cast and not to fake the prepared spell/slot (+ spell known).

BTW: I'm not arguing here that this is RAI (but would bring warlock more in line with other full casters, so who knows..), nor do I suggest here to abuse this at your table (unless you really intend to play high TO builds). Wish loops and pun pun are also RAW legal but nobody tries to play them. I just see this as RAW (so far..^^). Just as a side note ;)

[newguydude1]

Imho you are ignoring this part:

If a spell gets triggered, it gets cast (even if just passively). As said, if they would have only expended the prepared spell/slot, then yeah, it wouldn't work. But the part about triggered spells is there. Imbue Item fakes the cast and the crafting feats refer to spells being triggered = passively cast. As such, they describe a "specific" form of casting a spell.
Imbue Items further confirms this by giving you the ability to fake the cast and not to fake the prepared spell/slot (+ spell known).

BTW: I'm not arguing here that this is RAI (but would bring warlock more in line with other full casters, so who knows..), nor do I suggest here to abuse this at your table (unless you really intend to play high TO builds). Wish loops and pun pun are also RAW legal but nobody tries to play them. I just see this as RAW (so far..^^). Just as a side note ;)

no.

the spell gets triggered, not cast. and warlocks imbue items is worthless.

have you forgotten your 3 favorite words "primary source rule"?

primary source rule says spells are triggered everyday you work on an item and is never cast.
warlock class description is wrong and therefore by raw completely dysfunctional and unusable.

you cannot use any text in the warlock class description to figure out how magic item creation works because primary source rule. you must look solely at the dmg and mic and only those two books and if your warlock class description conflicts with it then too bad for warlocks. primary source rule.

[Gruftzwerg]

no.

the spell gets triggered, not cast. and warlocks imbue items is worthless.

have you forgotten your 3 favorite words "primary source rule"?

primary source rule says spells are triggered everyday you work on an item and is never cast.
warlock class description is wrong and therefore by raw completely dysfunctional and unusable.

you cannot use any text in the warlock class description to figure out how magic item creation works because primary source rule. you must look solely at the dmg and mic and only those two books and if your warlock class description conflicts with it then too bad for warlocks. primary source rule.

No I haven't forgotten em ;)

It's just that as I said, that "trigger a spell" implies a spell cast . And crafting rules (specific) alter the general component rules for their specific niche situation (crafting). And finally the warlock fakes those "components" (V,S,M,F) with his fake spell cast.

And as I showed you in an earlier post, there are several specific ways to alter the general component rules for spell casts.

[Darg]

no.

the spell gets triggered, not cast. and warlocks imbue items is worthless.

have you forgotten your 3 favorite words "primary source rule"?

primary source rule says spells are triggered everyday you work on an item and is never cast.
warlock class description is wrong and therefore by raw completely dysfunctional and unusable.

you cannot use any text in the warlock class description to figure out how magic item creation works because primary source rule. you must look solely at the dmg and mic and only those two books and if your warlock class description conflicts with it then too bad for warlocks. primary source rule.

What? You have the general rules for crafting. Then you have specific rules for bypassing those rules. Specific trumps general. Imbue item presents the spell components as if you had already cast the spell for the creation of the item. As it uses the word cast instead of triggered, the appropriate assumption should be all aspects of the spell were taken care of.

If one wants something dysfunctional, try a wish scroll. Craft it with the minimum xp value and wish for something that consumes many times that. Nothing in the rules that I've read actually says a wish scroll is limited by the xp put into its creation.

[icefractal]

Imbue Item fakes the cast and the crafting feats refer to spells being triggered = passively cast. As such, they describe a "specific" form of casting a spell.Please cite where you are getting this from, other than "triggered sounds similar to cast, to me".

Also please explain why you're considering "component cost = castings / triggerings" a "general rule", when it doesn't work (as in, significantly contradicts the given prices) for any type of magic item except Potions and Scrolls!

[Raishoiken]

No I haven't forgotten em ;)

It's just that as I said, that "trigger a spell" implies a spell cast

Thats only your interpretation of what the word "trigger" means, not what it actually means.

Triggering a spell during crafting and casting a spell are different. Just because they seem to be similar actions doesnt make them the same action. Thrallherd and leadership are essentially the exact same ability, but leadership stuff doesnt work for thrallherd


If the authors wanted us to think they were the same thing they would likely have told us that they were, instead of using both words in the same sentence to mean different things. The fact that they do that not only implies that triggering is not cast farrr more than the other way around, but it pretty much explicitly says that the spell isnt being cast and by extension, the rules explicitly say that your interpretation is incorrect

[newguydude1]

What? You have the general rules for crafting. Then you have specific rules for bypassing those rules. Specific trumps general. Imbue item presents the spell components as if you had already cast the spell for the creation of the item. As it uses the word cast instead of triggered, the appropriate assumption should be all aspects of the spell were taken care of.

If one wants something dysfunctional, try a wish scroll. Craft it with the minimum xp value and wish for something that consumes many times that. Nothing in the rules that I've read actually says a wish scroll is limited by the xp put into its creation.

no because you dont cast spells when crafting items, so "as if you cast the spell" doesnt accomplish anything. if the class feature says "as if you danced around the raw materials", would that accomplish anything? no because dancing around the raw materials does nothing.

its clear the writer of the class feature doesnt know the rules. its very common in d&d. draconomicon guy didnt know that innate spellcasting does require material components. the guy who wrote magic of eberron did not know psi-like abilities are augmented to the max so every stat block in magic of eberron is wrong. and the guy who wrote warlock doesnt know the rules for magic item creation and made a mistake here. and because of this imbue item is a worthless class feature.

[Raishoiken]

no because you dont cast spells when crafting items, so "as if you cast the spell" doesnt accomplish anything. if the class feature says "as if you danced around the raw materials", would that accomplish anything? no because dancing around the raw materials does nothing.

its clear the writer of the class feature doesnt know the rules. its very common in d&d. draconomicon guy didnt know that innate spellcasting does require material components. the guy who wrote magic of eberron did not know psi-like abilities are augmented to the max so every stat block in magic of eberron is wrong. and the guy who wrote warlock doesnt know the rules for magic item creation and made a mistake here. and because of this imbue item is a worthless class feature.



Sad times for inexperienced writers. Thankfully in addition to raw, we can infer the rai from all the information we have present:

RAW: seemingly falls short because you trigger and not cast while crafting so it does nothing

RAI: it removes the need to know or prepare the spell being placed in the item

neither of these involve skimping out on the crafting costs

[Gruftzwerg]

Please cite where you are getting this from, other than "triggered sounds similar to cast, to me".

Also please explain why you're considering "component cost = castings / triggerings" a "general rule", when it doesn't work (as in, significantly contradicts the given prices) for any type of magic item except Potions and Scrolls!

1. If "something" gets triggered, that "something" then works as intended. That "something" doesn't get changed.
e.g. "If I trigger you to become angry (assuming it works^^), then the result is that you become angry and not something else."
or
"If I trigger a switch, the outcome is already defined"
Finally, if we look at "spell trigger" items, we can see how "trigger" is again used to "cast spells" in a "specific" way (e.g. wand, rod..).

2. If a spell gets "triggered", I assume in the first place that it works as normal for a spell. Unless other more "specific" introductions are given (which the crafting feats do).

3. Spells & magic are defined things (which means they have a primary source). As such anything that refers to their use (including crafting) have to alter those general rules to work (or otherwise behave under the general rules). The general rules for spells have "Component" rules (phb p174). Anything that works with spells fall under this rule.
e.g. Note that SLA's (which clearly refer to spells) explicitly call out the differences for the "components".
Crafting feats do the same. They make changes to the component rules (specific) and the way the spell is cast (triggered passively and not cast actively). But the changes don't change that these things still are (altered) "Components" of the spell.
Imbue Item fakes the entire (altered) spell cast. And if you have cast a spell (or count as such), you already have provided all components.

[Raishoiken]

1. If "something" gets triggered, that "something" then works as intended. That "something" doesn't get changed.
e.g. "If I trigger you to become angry (assuming it works^^), then the result is that you become angry and not something else."
or
"If I trigger a switch, the outcome is already defined"
Finally, if we look at "spell trigger" items, we can see how "trigger" is again used to "cast spells" in a "specific" way (e.g. wand, rod..).

2. If a spell gets "triggered", I assume in the first place that it works as normal for a spell. Unless other more "specific" introductions are given (which the crafting feats do).

3. Spells & magic are defined things (which means they have a primary source). As such anything that refers to their use (including crafting) have to alter those general rules to work (or otherwise behave under the general rules). The general rules for spells have "Component" rules (phb p174). Anything that works with spells fall under this rule.
e.g. Note that SLA's (which clearly refer to spells) explicitly call out the differences for the "components".
Crafting feats do the same. They make changes to the component rules (specific) and the way the spell is cast (triggered passively and not cast actively). But the changes don't change that these things still are (altered) "Components" of the spell.
Imbue Item fakes the entire (altered) spell cast. And if you have cast a spell (or count as such), you already have provided all components.

Asking for clarity here. Is your entire point is based on the assumption that:

1: crafting uses spells
2: spells are cast
3: since spells are cast, triggered is just another way of saying casting a spell?
4: since you are casting a spell while crafting, you have to follow the component rules for spells unless it's specifically called out as different
5: since warlock makes the item "as if he cast the spell", but he didnt really cast the spell, he removes component costs from the creation formula

Did i make any mistakes in trying to reconstruct your arguement?

[Gruftzwerg]

Asking for clarity here. Is your entire point is based on the assumption that:

1: crafting uses spells
2: spells are cast
3: since spells are cast, triggered is just another way of saying casting a spell?
4: since you are casting a spell while crafting, you have to follow the component rules for spells unless it's specifically called out as different
5: since warlock makes the item "as if he cast the spell", but he didn't really cast the spell, he removes component costs from the creation formula

Did i make any mistakes in trying to reconstruct your arguement?

I guess you summed it good up. A pretty long argumentation chain, after seeing the several points..^^ but still RAW imho.

The point is, once a "defined keyword" in 3.5 gets mentioned, you are automatically forced under their rules (Primary Source Rule). You can alter these rules by making exceptions for specific niches but that's all the freedom you'll get.
And crafting does that: It uses spells and "alters" their general rules. Warlock fakes the entire ("altered") spell cast.

edit:
On second thought I would combine point 2+3 for better clarity.

2+3: "Triggering a spell" is a specific exception/way to cast spells.

Imho that would be more accurate here.

[Raishoiken]

I guess you summed it good up. A pretty long argumentation chain, after seeing the several points..^^ but still RAW imho.

The point is, once a "defined keyword" in 3.5 gets mentioned, you are automatically forced under their rules (Primary Source Rule). You can alter these rules by making exceptions for specific niches but that's all the freedom you'll get.
And crafting does that: It uses spells and "alters" their general rules. Warlock fakes the entire ("altered") spell cast.

Ok, im going to use a part of your argument to try to explain it better. Crafting does alter the general rules of how you work with the spell. It does so by having you trigger them as a part of crafting instead of casting them. Notice how the crafting rules dont say that you get to ignore component costs as a part of crafting, you would just also be paying for the fact that the xp component exists as a part of crafting.
If trigger means cast, and there is nothing that says you dont pay components when crafting, that would mean youd be paying them once a day per day you have to craft an item as someone mentioned earlier.

Instead though, the rules for using the spell are altered, since you're using it in a new way. The rules gett altered to where instead of having to castt the spell everyday and deal with components, you magically infuse the triggered spell into the item.

You cannot appeal to the "general spell rules" because when you're crafring a magic item you're using the altered "crafting an item" rules instead.

At this point you have to prove that any book anywhere says that you are casting the spell, which is a clearly defined process that you can use as a reference, and without just saying that you simply "think it means casting but an altered cast"

If you were referring to how magic items themselves trigger spells thatd be a different story because they usually pretty much follow the spellcasting rules for the most part so I'd give ya that one

[Gruftzwerg]

Ok, im going to use a part of your argument to try to explain it better. Crafting does alter the general rules of how you work with the spell. It does so by having you trigger them as a part of crafting instead of casting them. Notice how the crafting rules dont say that you get to ignore component costs as a part of crafting, you would just also be paying for the fact that the xp component exists as a part of crafting.
If trigger means cast, and there is nothing that says you dont pay components when crafting, that would mean youd be paying them once a day per day you have to craft an item as someone mentioned earlier.

Instead though, the rules for using the spell are altered, since you're using it in a new way. The rules gett altered to where instead of having to castt the spell everyday and deal with components, you magically infuse the triggered spell into the item.

You cannot appeal to the "general spell rules" because when you're crafring a magic item you're using the altered "crafting an item" rules instead.

At this point you have to prove that any book anywhere says that you are casting the spell, which is a clearly defined process that you can use as a reference, and without just saying that you simply "think it means casting but an altered cast"

If you were referring to how magic items themselves trigger spells thatd be a different story because they usually pretty much follow the spellcasting rules for the most part so I'd give ya that one

First, in chase you missed my edit of my last post on the last page: Imho "trigger" is a specific form of casting. (see Spell Trigger Items).

1. The rules alter the cast to being triggered.
2. Component rules get altered into when you begin crafting (only the first day) and the spell gets triggered
3. It's still altered "spell cast rules" and thus Imbue Item bypasses em with an UMD roll. The first day it fakes the spell cast including the demanded components and every day thereafter he just fakes the spell being triggered without any material components needed anymore (as per specific crafting rules).

Just because they are altered doesn't stop em from counting as spells/casts/components.
e.g. Just because Power Attack alters normal attack rules doesn't stop em from counting as attacks.
As such, just because crafting rules alter spell/cast/component rules they don't stop being them. The warlock fakes the entire altered cast (including components when needed).

[Raishoiken]

First, in chase you missed my edit of my last post on the last page: Imho "trigger" is a specific form of casting. (see Spell Trigger Items).

1. The rules alter the cast to being triggered.
2. Component rules get altered into when you begin crafting (only the first day) and the spell gets triggered
3. It's still altered "spell cast rules" and thus Imbue Item bypasses em with an UMD roll. The first day it fakes the spell cast including the demanded components and every day thereafter he just fakes the spell being triggered without any material components needed anymore (as per specific crafting rules).

Just because they are altered doesn't stop em from counting as spells/casts/components.
e.g. Just because Power Attack alters normal attack rules doesn't stop em from counting as attacks.
As such, just because crafting rules alter spell/cast/component rules they don't stop being them. The warlock fakes the entire altered cast (including components when needed).

i didn't miss anything, i just asked you to prove that trigger = casting instead of just stating your opinion that it's the case.

stating it as your opinion does not = "this is the phrase in the book that tells us that trigger means cast and not something different"

[Gruftzwerg]

i didn't miss anything, i just asked you to prove that trigger = casting instead of just stating your opinion that it's the case.

stating it as your opinion does not = "this is the phrase in the book that tells us that trigger means cast and not something different"

I have based my argument on actual rule text.

1. crafting rules make use of "spells"
2. spells require "casts"
3. trigger is a specific way to cast spells (see spell trigger items)
4. components are a part of spell casts
5. crafting rules alter spell cast and component rules
6. Imbue Item bypasses the altered spell cast rules for crafting purposes.

[Raishoiken]

I have based my argument on actual rule text.

1. crafting rules make use of "spells"
2. spells require "casts"
3. trigger is a specific way to cast spells (see spell trigger items)
4. components are a part of spell casts
5. crafting rules alter spell cast and component rules
6. Imbue Item bypasses the altered spell cast rules for crafting purposes.

What do you mean "spells require casts"? Spells are cast by spellcasters, but it isn't the only way a spell is used. ie: being crafted or used as a spell-like ability.

Sure, "spell trigger" is a type of magic item, but it is not a way you cast spells. Can you counter spell those? No. Why? Because it's producing a spell-like effect, but not actually "casting" the spell. Nowhere have you shown that something has said "triggering a spell through crafting is the same as casting a spell; except as follows" or anything similar, just that "spell trigger" is the name of an activation method

as such

Spells still don't require casts when they're being put in an item, because you haven't proved that trigger = cast

Doesn't the fact that the terms are explicitly called out as completely separate uses of a spell by the rules kind of mean that they aren't the same thing?



edit: as a bonus, the crafting section under each item type literally all literally specify what exactly it means to "trigger" the spell when crafting an item:


The act of working on the ..(item).. triggers the
prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each
day of the weapon’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended
from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

the section literally clarifies that triggering a spell means that working on the item expends a spell slot just like casting a spell expends a spell slot and nothing more than that. If you say that it does mean more you will have to show something that says something different than the magic item creation section, and even that wouldn't really do much because the magic item creation rules are primary. The whole "spells have primary rules" thing you're trying to do falls flat because spells have different rules based on how they're being used. They are either cast, or used in crafting a magic item, and those two things are not the same thing

[newguydude1]

The act of working on the armor triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the armor’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

as if =/= actual casting.

[Gruftzwerg]

What do you mean "spells require casts"? Spells are cast by spellcasters, but it isn't the only way a spell is used. ie: being crafted or used as a spell-like ability.
"Casting" a spell is the most general way to use spells. PHB p169 the Magic chapter (the Primary Source for Spells) starts with "Casting Spells". As already said in my previous posts, SLA's, spell trigger items and crafting make all use of "spells" and thus alter the general spell rules. SLA's also change the way a spell is cast (changing Components and the way AoO behave). Crafting does the same by altering the "casting" to "trigger" and altering the "component" rules to whatever the crafting feat requires (e.g. wands demanding multiple material component costs)..


Sure, "spell trigger" is a type of magic item, but it is not a way you cast spells. Can you counter spell those? No. Why? Because it's producing a spell-like effect, but not actually "casting" the spell. Nowhere have you shown that something has said "triggering a spell through crafting is the same as casting a spell; except as follows" or anything similar, just that "spell trigger" is the name of an activation method

I've shown you that spells need to be cast and that spell trigger is another form of it.
Remember that anything that uses spells needs to either behave under or alter the "spell" rules.
Spell trigger is as such just another form to cast a spell. Wands use "spell trigger" and they cast spells (in a specific way). And yeah, spells from wands are "counter spell"-able. Imho you are starting to throw arguments without even proven em here. Lets take our time here pls. No need to hurry, I don't run away. Nor have I any ill intentions here. I don't think that you really believe/play with your spell trigger is not counterable argument and that you are just rushing argument here. Take you time as I try to take mine. We don't need to feel rushed and get overheated here. (and sorry if I implied things that may not be true. I just try to calm the discussion down here a bit ;)



edit: as a bonus, the crafting section under each item type literally all literally specify what exactly it means to "trigger" the spell when crafting an item:

yeah, it alters the general rules for spell casting and shows how spell casts behave when triggered as part of crafting.



as if =/= actual casting.
Have I said something else? I know that it only "fakes" the spell cast and that the warlock does't actually cast the spell (and thus doesn't need to provide components). That's what I'm telling here. I don't see how this should affect my viewpoint?

[Raishoiken]

"Casting" a spell is the most general way to use spells. PHB p169 the Magic chapter (the Primary Source for Spells) starts with "Casting Spells". As already said in my previous posts, SLA's, spell trigger items and crafting make all use of "spells" and thus alter the general spell rules. SLA's also change the way a spell is cast (changing Components and the way AoO behave). Crafting does the same by altering the "casting" to "trigger" and altering the "component" rules to whatever the crafting feat requires (e.g. wands demanding multiple material component costs)..


I've shown you that spells need to be cast and that spell trigger is another form of it.
Remember that anything that uses spells needs to either behave under or alter the "spell" rules.
Spell trigger is as such just another form to cast a spell. Wands use "spell trigger" and they cast spells (in a specific way). And yeah, spells from wands are "counter spell"-able. Imho you are starting to throw arguments without even proven em here. Lets take our time here pls. No need to hurry, I don't run away. Nor have I any ill intentions here. I don't think that you really believe/play with your spell trigger is not counterable argument and that you are just rushing argument here. Take you time as I try to take mine. We don't need to feel rushed and get overheated here. (and sorry if I implied things that may not be true. I just try to calm the discussion down here a bit ;)


yeah, it alters the general rules for spell casting and shows how spell casts behave when triggered as part of crafting.



Have I said something else? I know that it only "fakes" the spell cast and that the warlock does't actually cast the spell (and thus doesn't need to provide components). That's what I'm telling here. I don't see how this should affect my viewpoint?


Casting a spell is indeed the most common way a spell is used. This does not mean that every other way to use spells is another form of casting a spell. You havent proven that it is, you just keep stating your opinion that trigger and cast mean the same thing, even though multiple people now have shown that it isnt the case

Same thing with sla's, for which your arguement would actually make more sense for: activating an sla is not casting a spell either, even though they work essentially the same way.


The important part you're missing is that the crafting section isnt changing how you are castong a spell. The crafting section is showing how you use a spell in a way that isnt casting it. Thats why ot doesnt use the word cast when describing how you use the spell during crafting.

All you have done is say "crafting items section just changes how certain terms function in when casting spells because casting a spell is the primary way you use a spell", without actually giving any rules text that say that trigger and cast is the same.

The fact that all of the crafting section says the spell slots are expended "as if the spell was cast", as homie said above me, should be literally all the proof you need that the spell isnt being cast. Because if the spell being triggered was the spell being cast, it would say somehing along the lines of "the spell slot is still consumed normally". Instead, it shows the literally only way that trigger and cast are similar, which is that a slot gets burned


Long story short: just because casting a spell is the most common way you use a spell, doesnt mean every other way you use a spell is just a different way to "cast" a spell. Crafting rule doesnt "alter" casting rule, its just a different set of rules for using spells in general




Does anyone else have a more concise way to explain this concept?

[Gruftzwerg]

Casting a spell is indeed the most common way a spell is used. This does not mean that every other way to use spells is another form of casting a spell.
The Primary Source Rule demands that anything has either to obey the general rules or make specific exceptions for their niche. If you agree that casting a spell is the most common way to use/activate a spell, you agreed that this is the general rule that the Primary Source dictates. As such anything that makes use of spells have to either follow the general cast rules or can makes specific exceptions/changes to them for their niche.



You havent proven that it is, you just keep stating your opinion that trigger and cast mean the same thing, even though multiple people now have shown that it isnt the case

Same thing with sla's, for which your arguement would actually make more sense for: activating an sla is not casting a spell either, even though they work essentially the same way.


The important part you're missing is that the crafting section isnt changing how you are castong a spell. The crafting section is showing how you use a spell in a way that isnt casting it. Thats why ot doesnt use the word cast when describing how you use the spell during crafting.

All you have done is say "crafting items section just changes how certain terms function in when casting spells because casting a spell is the primary way you use a spell", without actually giving any rules text that say that trigger and cast is the same.

The fact that all of the crafting section says the spell slots are expended "as if the spell was cast", as homie said above me, should be literally all the proof you need that the spell isnt being cast. Because if the spell being triggered was the spell being cast, it would say somehing along the lines of "the spell slot is still consumed normally". Instead, it shows the literally only way that trigger and cast are similar, which is that a slot gets burned


Long story short: just because casting a spell is the most common way you use a spell, doesnt mean every other way you use a spell is just a different way to "cast" a spell. Crafting rule doesnt "alter" casting rule, its just a different set of rules for using spells in general




Does anyone else have a more concise way to explain this concept?

1. Spell Trigger (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellTrigger)

Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
The rule describes how can use/activate spells from spell trigger items. It alters the rules how a spell is normally cast (activated). Changing the general rules for its niche.

2. SLA (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
SLA change the way a spell is cast for its niche.

3. Grafting
The crafting feats all make us of the word "trigger". And ,as in the chase of "spell trigger" items, it shows how they alter the way a spell would be normally cast.



All of them are worded in a way that they alter the rules how a spell is regular "cast" (confirming "cast" as general rule).

None of em makes a specific call out "to not count as cast anymore". As such, the may be using just altered cast rules, but they are still "altered cast rules".

Warlocks also accept that casting a spell is the general rule and alters the general rule directly for their niche (specific). Since they can roll UMD to appear "..as if he had cast the required spell.", they also appear to have fulfilled the required (altered) component rules for casting a spell (since those are part of the spell casting rules).

[Raishoiken]

The Primary Source Rule demands that anything has either to obey the general rules or make specific exceptions for their niche. If you agree that casting a spell is the most common way to use/activate a spell, you agreed that this is the general rule that the Primary Source dictates. As such anything that makes use of spells have to either follow the general cast rules or can makes specific exceptions/changes to them for their niche.



No, the primary source rule just tells you what to refer to if one thing contradicts another. What im saying isnt a contradiction to a rule. Me agreeing that casting a spell is the more common use for spells doesn't mean that the first thing you look at whenever a spell is used in any way is the casting rules. Youre acting like this is the alter self chain, where casting rules are alter self, and crafting rules are polymorph where it " crafting a magic item works like casting except as follows" which is clearly not the case.

Instead, spells are their own thing. There are many ways to use spells. You either cast them, and use the casting rules because youre casting them, use a spell-like ability or supernatural ability that mimics the spell but still doesnt cast the spell which is admittedly the only that comes close to actually fallong in line with your arguement, or you craft a magic item that contains the spell in some way, where you have to have the spell either known or prepared during which no casting is said to occur anywhere. You dont have to infer when a spell os being cast, the rules literally will always tell you when it is, or if something else entirely is happening




1. Spell Trigger (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellTrigger)

The rule describes how can use/activate spells from spell trigger items. It alters the rules how a spell is normally cast (activated). Changing the general rules for its niche.
[/quote]

Yes, the rules describe how you activate magic items that then produce a spell.
Activating magic item does not mean spell being cast. Only spellcasters cast spells



2. SLA (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#)

SLA change the way a spell is cast for its niche.



This is the only thing your very close to right about.
The spell like abilities mimic spells and alter the requirements for producing the effects, but they still dont cast a spell because casting a spell is defined as a specific thing



3. Grafting
The crafting feats all make us of the word "trigger". And ,as in the chase of "spell trigger" items, it shows how they alter the way a spell would be normally cast.

All of them are worded in a way that they alter the rules how a spell is regular "cast" (confirming "cast" as general rule).

They do say trigger. If they meant cast, it would say cast instead. It would actually probably say you cast it, except with these changes. The way they are worded, they say absolutely nothing about how the spell is cast because they dont cast spells. Different items are activated through different methods to produce different effects, some of those effecrs being spells



None of em makes a specific call out "to not count as cast anymore". As such, the may be using just altered cast rules, but they are still "altered cast rules".
They dont have to because its obvious and explicitly spelled out in plain words that you are not casting a spell, you are instead triggering it during the crafting process. The rules dont have to say you arent doing something, the rules have to tell you what you are doing. And can you point to me what the rules say? Trigger. Trigger does not mean cast, nor is it just "altered cast" because nothing says it is




Warlocks also accept that casting a spell is the general rule and alters the general rule directly for their niche (specific). Since they can roll UMD to appear "..as if he had cast the required spell.", they also appear to have fulfilled the required (altered) component rules for casting a spell (since those are part of the spell casting rules).

Warlock is literally the only thing ever to say that casting would occur. And guess what? Due to the primary source for crafting saying that you trigger spells and dont cast them, it shows a contradiction and therefor does not matter, which soneone else alreadu pointed out to you but you seemed to have ignored



Is there any better way to put this?

[Gruftzwerg]

No, the primary source rule just tells you what to refer to if one thing contradicts another. What im saying isnt a contradiction to a rule. Me agreeing that casting a spell is the more common use for spells doesn't mean that the first thing you look at whenever a spell is used in any way is the casting rules. Youre acting like this is the alter self chain, where casting rules are alter self, and crafting rules are polymorph where it " crafting a magic item works like casting except as follows" which is clearly not the case.
No, I'm acting like how the Primary Source Rule (PSR) enforces me to do. I've shown that the PSR states that the PHB is to be considered the primary source for the (basic) rules needed to play the game. Spells are within the domain of the PHB. And this primary source sets casting as the primary (general) way to use/activate spells. Anything else has either to obey these rules or make specific exceptions for its own niche. Specific trumps General is as said a byproduct of the PSR, because this is the conclusion what thrives from the PSR. If everything has to follow the primary source, you can only call out specific exceptions for niches.

Unless the crafting feats explicitly call out to ignore that a spell has to be cast or that it doesn't "count" as a cast anymore, it still only alters the casting rules.


Instead, spells are their own thing. There are many ways to use spells. You either cast them, and use the casting rules because youre casting them, use a spell-like ability or supernatural ability that mimics the spell but still doesnt cast the spell which is admittedly the only that comes close to actually fallong in line with your arguement, or you craft a magic item that contains the spell in some way, where you have to have the spell either known or prepared during which no casting is said to occur anywhere. You dont have to infer when a spell os being cast, the rules literally will always tell you when it is, or if something else entirely is happening




Yes, the rules describe how you activate magic items that then produce a spell.
Activating magic item does not mean spell being cast. Only spellcasters cast spells



This is the only thing your very close to right about.
The spell like abilities mimic spells and alter the requirements for producing the effects, but they still dont cast a spell because casting a spell is defined as a specific thing



They do say trigger. If they meant cast, it would say cast instead. It would actually probably say you cast it, except with these changes. The way they are worded, they say absolutely nothing about how the spell is cast because they dont cast spells. Different items are activated through different methods to produce different effects, some of those effecrs being spells


They dont have to because its obvious and explicitly spelled out in plain words that you are not casting a spell, you are instead triggering it during the crafting process. The rules dont have to say you arent doing something, the rules have to tell you what you are doing. And can you point to me what the rules say? Trigger. Trigger does not mean cast, nor is it just "altered cast" because nothing says it is

I've shown how anything that makes use of spells alters the casting process to their needs. None of em call out that they are not casts anymore. All describe changes in a way that lets you assume that "casting" is the primary/general way to use/activate spells. You still have to failed to provide any proof that crafting may ignore the general casting rules.


Warlock is literally the only thing ever to say that casting would occur. And guess what? Due to the primary source for crafting saying that you trigger spells and dont cast them, it shows a contradiction and therefor does not matter, which soneone else alreadu pointed out to you but you seemed to have ignored



Is there any better way to put this?

Warlocks are simple by design. Compared to other full casters they have lesser things that bothers them (e.g. resource management).
As such, imho it is only natural that they keep the crafting process for warlocks also simple. By faking a required spell cast for crafting, you can bypass any altered spell cast rules for crafting. It is that simple.

If I would follow your interpretation, I would first have to ignore that the PSR directs me to the PHB for the general rules to use spells (Casting). Then ignore that anything that makes use of spells alter the casting rules. Finally I would be left with a dysfunctional warlock ability, since crafting does not make use of "spell casts".
Ignoring the PSR while also causing dysfunction doesn't look so appealing to me, if we have an interpretation that doesn't cause these problems. It leads to a cheesy ability that pumps warlock to T1-2 at best. At the cost of wealth (to craft), with slightly better wealth-o-mancy to compensate for that at the same time.
While this is a strong abuse able ability, it's on the same sanity lvl as other T1-2 classes (broken at best, but not game breaking unless you overuse it^^).

[Raishoiken]

No, I'm acting like how the Primary Source Rule (PSR) enforces me to do. I've shown that the PSR states that the PHB is to be considered the primary source for the (basic) rules needed to play the game. Spells are within the domain of the PHB. And this primary source sets casting as the primary (general) way to use/activate spells. Anything else has either to obey these rules or make specific exceptions for its own niche. Specific trumps General is as said a byproduct of the PSR, because this is the conclusion what thrives from the PSR. If everything has to follow the primary source, you can only call out specific exceptions for niches.

Unless the crafting feats explicitly call out to ignore that a spell has to be cast or that it doesn't "count" as a cast anymore, it still only alters the casting rules.



If you were paying attention you would see that when the dmg says you trigger instead of cast that that is the specific exception you keep talking about, if one even was ever needed.

More than one person has pointed out how you are wrong about this.
The fact that you are simply circularly repeating the same thing without truly addressing, or more likely not truly understanding, what im saying tells me that this is the end of our conversation, it is going nowhere. Get anyone else to agree with you and then we'll talk. The fact that you are the literal only person who has participated in this conversation with your viewpoint stance at the moment should be telling for you

[Gruftzwerg]

If you were paying attention you would see that when the dmg says you trigger instead of cast that that is the specific exception you keep talking about, if one even was ever needed.

More than one person has pointed out how you are wrong about this.
The fact that you are simply circularly repeating the same thing without truly addressing, or more likely not truly understanding, what im saying tells me that this is the end of our conversation, it is going nowhere. Get anyone else to agree with you and then we'll talk. The fact that you are the literal only person who has participated in this conversation with your viewpoint stance at the moment should be telling for you

It describes only changes to the regular cast, by being passively triggered (and in some chases altered material component rules). It never explicitly calls out that it changes the cast into something else. It only tells you how some parts of the cast are altered. But they are still spell casting rules. Same can be said about SLAs, they call out all changes to the cast (e.g. Components: V,S,M,F). Crafting feats do the same. They make changes to the regular casting rules without any indicator that it wouldn't be any cast anymore. There is no explicit permission to do so.

[Raishoiken]

It describes only changes to the regular cast, by being passively triggered (and in some chases altered material component rules). It never explicitly calls out that it changes the cast into something else. It only tells you how some parts of the cast are altered. But they are still spell casting rules. Same can be said about SLAs, they call out all changes to the cast (e.g. Components: V,S,M,F). Crafting feats do the same. They make changes to the regular casting rules without any indicator that it wouldn't be any cast anymore. There is no explicit permission to do so.


Somehow i think you're just ignoring certain points by now. Not everything to do with spells is an "altered cast". The "casting a spell" rules are not a base template that is then tweaked a little bit, as you are suggesting There is literally no proof for it. The "primary source rule" shtick you keep trying does not work because it does not apply here. There are no rules contradictions, and also yes, the book LITERALLY says that you are doing something that is not casting. You seem to be confused, thinking that the book has to say the words "you are not casting this spell" in order for you not to be casting when it literally says in several places that the thing you are doing is not casting. The book doesn't say you are casting it, but in a different way, and it has to say that in order for you to be right. The rules have to tell you what you are doing, they don't expect you to do the mental gymnastics you are doing just to be right.

Another way to look at it is that you literally have to make a bunch of assumptions in order to reach your conclusion
you not only have to assume that trigger means casting
you ALSO have to assume that trigger means casting EVEN THOUGH the book literally tells you in plain words that you are, in fact, not casting.

Where as if you're simply reading the rules as they are presented, you have to make exactly 0 assumptions. You just read that the book says you trigger the spell by working on the item, and you need to pay attention closely and see that it tells you in plain words that you aren't casting the spell you're just expending a slot "as if" you were casting it


You have to make 0 assumptions to come to the conclusion that you are not casting the spell, and you have to make 2 assumptions at the very least to think that you are casting the spell. One of the assumptions you are making to reach your conclusion is completely ignoring rules text.

Your arguement is circular. You start with the "assumption" that any thing that uses spells is casting a spell some how and the rules never say this is the case. It's just the more common use for them. It isn't the "primary rule" for spells, the primary rules for how a spell works is in the spell description. The "casting a spell" section is the primary rule for when you cast a spell. The crafting section never ever says you cast the spell, nor does it have to call out that you aren't casting a spell (even though uh. it literally tells you that you dont)

Are you perhaps trolling for fun or do you still somehow believe this stance? Because using your stance i could counter spell anyone who is crafting a magic item and ruin the creation process, and counter spell scrolls and wands and staves when they produce their spell effects. Y'know, since it doesn't say that you can't

So once again, unless literally any other person can find a better way to explain your side or even to just agree with any point of your argument, you should probably stop pretending like you're using the "primary source" argument correctly.
In fact, we can make a whole separate thread asking this exact question just to continue to prove it. Because surely if you're right more people than not will agree with you, right? Since most people here have a pretty decent grasp of the english language they should be able to come just as easily to your conclusion as you do if you're correct. Does that sound like a bad way to determine which one of us is correct seeing as how apparently we are not ever going to agree? This way we can figure out which one of us is playing the game "wrong"

[Gruftzwerg]

Somehow i think you're just ignoring certain points by now. Not everything to do with spells is an "altered cast". The "casting a spell" rules are not a base template that is then tweaked a little bit, as you are suggesting There is literally no proof for it. The "primary source rule" shtick you keep trying does not work because it does not apply here. There are no rules contradictions, and also yes, the book LITERALLY says that you are doing something that is not casting. You seem to be confused, thinking that the book has to say the words "you are not casting this spell" in order for you not to be casting when it literally says in several places that the thing you are doing is not casting. The book doesn't say you are casting it, but in a different way, and it has to say that in order for you to be right. The rules have to tell you what you are doing, they don't expect you to do the mental gymnastics you are doing just to be right.

...

You are still ignoring the territories the Primary Source Rule sets:

... The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. ...
"Casting a Spell" sets a general rule when you want to use spells. And there are only 2 options that can alter this:
a) mentioning an explicit rule change/update that is like Rules Compendium, Draconomicon or Errata as examples.
b) make explicit call outs for specific rules that only apply in a niche
If you want to use Spells in any way, the "Casting a Spell" rule is the gatekeeper. SLAs alter the component (V,S,M,F,XP) rules. Spell trigger items do the same. And crafting is in no way special worded that it denies the status that a spell cast is triggered here. It doesn't need to mention that it is still a spell cast. PSR demands that it needs to deny it clearly to make your interpretation plausible.

I'll try to give a real life "light switch" example here for "trigger":
Imagine a light switch (cast) for a light bulb (spell) that you can use actively as "normal" (general) and that can also be "triggered" passively (specific) via the daylight (when it becomes dark).
Unless the "trigger" has some special functions (explicit specific exceptions), you expect the switch to work as intended.
It is still "triggering" the light switch (cast) that activates the light bulb (spell).

As said, a trigger only does what you would normally expect as outcome, unless specific exceptions are called out (and build in^^). And so far the crafting rules only show how parts of "casting a spell" gets altered, but it never denies its status as spell cast. And it doesn't define a new status either. There is no explicit mentioning of that (or did I miss any crafting specific definition paragraph about "trigger" anywhere? kindly asking here).

[Raishoiken]

You are still ignoring the territories the Primary Source Rule sets:

"Casting a Spell" sets a general rule when you want to use spells. And there are only 2 options that can alter this:
a) mentioning an explicit rule change/update that is like Rules Compendium, Draconomicon or Errata as examples.
b) make explicit call outs for specific rules that only apply in a niche
If you want to use Spells in any way, the "Casting a Spell" rule is the gatekeeper. SLAs alter the component (V,S,M,F,XP) rules. Spell trigger items do the same. And crafting is in no way special worded that it denies the status that a spell cast is triggered here. It doesn't need to mention that it is still a spell cast. PSR demands that it needs to deny it clearly to make your interpretation plausible.

I'll try to give a real life "light switch" example here for "trigger":
Imagine a light switch (cast) for a light bulb (spell) that you can use actively as "normal" (general) and that can also be "triggered" passively (specific) via the daylight (when it becomes dark).
Unless the "trigger" has some special functions (explicit specific exceptions), you expect the switch to work as intended.
It is still "triggering" the light switch (cast) that activates the light bulb (spell).

As said, a trigger only does what you would normally expect as outcome, unless specific exceptions are called out (and build in^^). And so far the crafting rules only show how parts of "casting a spell" gets altered, but it never denies its status as spell cast. And it doesn't define a new status either. There is no explicit mentioning of that (or did I miss any crafting specific definition paragraph about "trigger" anywhere? kindly asking here).


No im not ignoring the primary rules, you're misunderstanding how to use that phrase. Casting a spell ia not the "gatekeeper" ruleset if you want to use spells in anyway. It only is in your mind for some reason. Check the other thread m8 because you keep saying the same stuff without actually addressing what I've said about it