creating magic items and "casting spells" [Archive]

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-04, 01:26 AM

I was part of the original discussion about warlocks imbue item ability where this one of the mayor points of the discussion. I missed this thread at first glance and thus will quote part of my answer from the other thread for easier read in this thread.

... 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).

Imho this shows that by RAW crafting rules still obey the "casting spells" rule and just alters em for their niche. But it still counts as altered "Casting Spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)". The warlocks "Imbue Item" ability says "... the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell", which confirms my reading that anything that uses spells behaves under the "Casting Spells"-rules, even if in altered form.

PS: in the quote I say "casting a spell" but the actual title is "Casting Spells" as in the link & phb. sorry, it is still early in the morning here ;)

GeoffWatson

2021-03-04, 01:49 AM

That's an interesting question though. Can the maker of a scroll for example, pay the casting material cost of the spell while the scroll is being made? Like a Raise Dead scroll that already has the 5k gold diamond already incorporated into the scroll?

They must do so.
A raise dead scroll has it's creation cost increased by the material component.

As for the original poster: What are you trying to exploit with the ruling? That would help us work out what rules cover it.

hamishspence

2021-03-04, 01:59 AM

The warlocks "Imbue Item" ability says "... the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell", which confirms my reading that anything that uses spells behaves under the "Casting Spells"-rules, even if in altered form.

You've argued that "can be used as a weapon" is not "is a weapon".

can be used as "ranged weapon != "is/are/counts as" weapon

So why not "As if casting a spell != casting a spell"?

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-04, 02:38 AM

You've argued that "can be used as a weapon" is not "is a weapon".

So why not "As if casting a spell != casting a spell"?

The "can be used as a weapon" is part of a specific rule within the general "weapon" rules.

In this chase "Casting Spells" is the general rule which you are arguing against. When two rules interact, you need to know the relationship between those two rules. Which one is general and which one is specific. With that you can solve the interaction where one may suppress the other or gets suppressed itself.

I agree that "as if casting a spell != casting a spell". That doesn't affect my argument in this situation at all.
I just enforce the Primary Source Rule that demands that anything "spell" related has to follow the general "Casting Spells" rule or alter it. Imbue Item, Scrolls, Wands, Crafting, SLA all of em use altered "Casting Spell" rules. None of them claims that it isn't a spell cast anymore. They don't give it a special name to define another category to active spells besides from "Casting Spells". As such, we have to assume that they just alter the "Casting Spell" rules and that they are still casting spells.

E.g. You use Power Attack (specific). Does your "Power Attack" stop counting as a "normal" attack (general) now? No, because it never touched that topic. With that in mind, can you show me any rule text that says that crafting, SLA or spell trigger items say anything that they stop counting as spell cast?

edit: Have a look at the Counterspell rules:

To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell.
Do you wanna imply that you can't counterspell SLA, wands, rods and other spell trigger items? Do you really think/imply that those things aren't "Casting Spells" anymore? I hope not ;)

Saintheart

2021-03-04, 04:11 AM

Only footnote: it's explicit for runes that the creation time is 10 minutes plus the casting time of the spell. But then runes are explicitly spells cast as magical writing, so that's different from the normal run of magic items.

Raishoiken

2021-03-04, 12:12 PM

They must do so.
A raise dead scroll has it's creation cost increased by the material component.

As for the original poster: What are you trying to exploit with the ruling? That would help us work out what rules cover it.

Im not trying to exploit anything. Just tryinf to see if more than one person agrees with the stance taken below

The "can be used as a weapon" is part of a specific rule within the general "weapon" rules.

In this chase "Casting Spells" is the general rule which you are arguing against. When two rules interact, you need to know the relationship between those two rules. Which one is general and which one is specific. With that you can solve the interaction where one may suppress the other or gets suppressed itself.

I agree that "as if casting a spell != casting a spell". That doesn't affect my argument in this situation at all.
I just enforce the Primary Source Rule that demands that anything "spell" related has to follow the general "Casting Spells" rule or alter it. Imbue Item, Scrolls, Wands, Crafting, SLA all of em use altered "Casting Spell" rules. None of them claims that it isn't a spell cast anymore. They don't give it a special name to define another category to active spells besides from "Casting Spells". As such, we have to assume that they just alter the "Casting Spell" rules and that they are still casting spells.

E.g. You use Power Attack (specific). Does your "Power Attack" stop counting as a "normal" attack (general) now? No, because it never touched that topic. With that in mind, can you show me any rule text that says that crafting, SLA or spell trigger items say anything that they stop counting as spell cast?

edit: Have a look at the Counterspell rules:

Do you wanna imply that you can't counterspell SLA, wands, rods and other spell trigger items? Do you really think/imply that those things aren't "Casting Spells" anymore? I hope not ;)

First of all, yes, im pretty aure you cant counterspell magic itema. Can you show me a rule that says you can?
Also, can you show me a rule that says in ordee to use a spell in any fashion that you must refer to casting a spell rules?
Also, you literally cannot continue to say that the craftin rules dont say you aren't casting a spell when several people now have literally proven you explicitly incorrect.
If you want other people to think you're correct, addreas how our argument, as a collective no less, is wrong, rather than just saying "but primary source tho".

At this point im becoming more certain that you may not be grasping the actual english of the rules for some reason. Either that or you're juat ignoring the obvious (and by obvious i mean its been effortly concluded in a way that contradicts your side) by several people at this point

But you must be the only person who understands the rules it seems and everyone else is getting it wrong?

smetzger

2021-03-04, 12:26 PM

I don't see the difference. Is there some sort of loophole you are trying to jump through?

Why does it matter one way or the other to you?

Remuko

2021-03-04, 12:54 PM

I don't see the difference. Is there some sort of loophole you are trying to jump through?

Why does it matter one way or the other to you?

some people think the warlocks ability means they arent actually casting the spells so they dont have to pay the exp cost of the spell when crafting something that includes the spell. ie they still have to pay the base crafting cost of exp but not any additional from the spell if it has a normal exp cost. afaik thats the debate here. rai and gruft disagree on whether they have to pay the spells base exp component or not.

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-04, 02:12 PM

Im not trying to exploit anything. Just tryinf to see if more than one person agrees with the stance taken below

First of all, yes, im pretty aure you cant counterspell magic itema. Can you show me a rule that says you can?
Also, can you show me a rule that says in ordee to use a spell in any fashion that you must refer to casting a spell rules?
Also, you literally cannot continue to say that the craftin rules dont say you aren't casting a spell when several people now have literally proven you explicitly incorrect.
If you want other people to think you're correct, addreas how our argument, as a collective no less, is wrong, rather than just saying "but primary source tho".

At this point im becoming more certain that you may not be grasping the actual english of the rules for some reason. Either that or you're juat ignoring the obvious (and by obvious i mean its been effortly concluded in a way that contradicts your side) by several people at this point

But you must be the only person who understands the rules it seems and everyone else is getting it wrong?
RAW isn't decided my majority. Are we now voting to decide which interpretation is right?

Casting Spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm) is part of the PHB. The "Primary Source for playing the game". This also includes Components rules (V,S,M,F,XP...) that you need for the cast. It is the general way described in the PHB how to use spells.

I have shown you how anything that uses spells alter these rules (they are "targeted" by those abilities). SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting rules. So far you have failed to prove that they don't fall under the Casting Spells rule.

@ smetzger
as I said in my first post, this question did thrive from the warlocks Imbue Item ability discussion. The ability lets warlocks craft items as if they would have cast the spell. I argue that cafting still operates under altered "Casting Spells" rules with altered "Component" (V,S,M,F,XP..) rules. This leads to the conclusion that warlock bypasses all Components needed to fake a "spell being cast" with UMD, since those are a part of "Casting Spells".

Raishoiken

2021-03-04, 03:26 PM

RAW isn't decided my majority. Are we now voting to decide which interpretation is right?

Casting
Spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm) is part of the PHB. The "Primary Source for playing the game". This also includes Components rules (V,S,M,F,XP...) that you need for the cast. It is the general way described in the PHB how to use spells.

I have shown you how anything that uses spells alter these rules (they are "targeted" by those abilities). SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting rules. So far you have failed to prove that they don't fall under the Casting Spells rule.

You haven't shown this. You just present the rules that govern how you cast a spell and then make a claim that those rules govern all other rules that include the use of spells in them. You have shown no reason for why those rules have anything to do with the rules for placing spells in items. They are different rules that literally say you're doing different things (trigger vs cast). Even if you were right about them just altering the casting spell rules, you would still have to deal with the fact that the "altered rule" tells you that instead of A, you are doing B.
Instead of casting the spell, it is simply triggered instead, explicitly.

And as to the whole "raw by majority" thing; i just sort of figured the fact that you seem to be the only one coming to this interpretation at the moment would be a decent hint that you may want to try to look at it another way

I don't see the difference. Is there some sort of loophole you are trying to jump through?

Why does it matter one way or the other to you?

It affects the warlock thing and really anything else having to do with interacting with spells being "Cast". Counter-spelling, concentration checks, things of the sort.
You can pick back up on your progress when crafting an item, if someone smacks you while spellcasting and you fail a check you're SOL

Darg

2021-03-04, 04:36 PM

It affects the warlock thing

I disagree with this.

Honestly this whole discussion is not going to find consensus. The language used is completely contradictory.

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod,
the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast

I think it could be taken either way. The terminology of imbue items implies not needing the spell components regardless of the outcome. This is the way my groups have interpreted it and will continue to do so.

Raishoiken

2021-03-04, 05:05 PM

I disagree with this.

Honestly this whole discussion is not going to find consensus. The language used is completely contradictory.

I think it could be taken either way. The terminology of imbue items implies not needing the spell components regardless of the outcome. This is the way my groups have interpreted it and will continue to do so.

must have "prepared the spells to be cast": this is what wizards druids and clerics do at the beginning of the day. Preparing spells in the morning is "preparing them to be cast" i would imagine

Darg

2021-03-04, 05:47 PM

Vaern

2021-03-04, 08:58 PM

Depending on what kind of item you're creating, the rules for creating that item will specify additional costs. For example, the rules for scribing a scroll say that you must provide any material component that the spell requires and that 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 item creation rules don't seem to care if you would pay the material component cost for a spell - only that the spell requires one. If the spell requires a costly material component, you must supply that material component as an additional crafting cost to create the item.
The item creation rules don't seem to care if you're actually casting the spell. If casting the spell would reduce the caster's XP, you pay additional XP as a crafting cost to create the item.
You don't need to supply extra materials or additional XP for "casting" the spell; you pay them as additional crafting costs to create the item.

Warlocks gain the ability to make a UMD check to ignore the spell requirement for item creation. Warlocks do not gain the ability to ignore parts of the item creation process other than knowing the prerequisite spell. Supplying 50 times the material component cost of a spell to craft a wand is not the cost of casting the spell - it's the cost of crafting the wand, per the wand crafting rules. They pay for material components and XP costs as a function of the item creation feat in question, not as part of "casting" the necessary spell.

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-05, 12:48 AM

That's the thing, RAW doesn't care about RAI and the only actual reference for intent is under question. So, what are we doing about it here? Arguing RAI when both have RAW support. This is at the point of "discuss with DM" to determine how you are going to play.

There will not be a definitive answer to this thread's title question if imbue item is not considered a valid source of intent. Especially, when it's functioning as an ability is at stake.

Whether imbue item ignores components or not is separate from this.
I argue that sole one has RAW support. Because ... thx due to ERRATA we have the PRIMARY SOURCE RULE. You know, the rule that is supposed to solve conflict like these xD
If this is not the situation to apply it then when?^^

explanation see below.

You haven't shown this. You just present the rules that govern how you cast a spell and then make a claim that those rules govern all other rules that include the use of spells in them. You have shown no reason for why those rules have anything to do with the rules for placing spells in items. They are different rules that literally say you're doing different things (trigger vs cast). Even if you were right about them just altering the casting spell rules, you would still have to deal with the fact that the "altered rule" tells you that instead of A, you are doing B.
Instead of casting the spell, it is simply triggered instead, explicitly.

And as to the whole "raw by majority" thing; i just sort of figured the fact that you seem to be the only one coming to this interpretation at the moment would be a decent hint that you may want to try to look at it another way

It affects the warlock thing and really anything else having to do with interacting with spells being "Cast". Counter-spelling, concentration checks, things of the sort.
You can pick back up on your progress when crafting an item, if someone smacks you while spellcasting and you fail a check you're SOL
As I quoted in my first post in this thread:
The Primary Source Rules say the PHB is the primary source for playing the game. Any other source needs to treat the PHB as general rule(s). As such they can only change those things mentioned for their niche and anything else stays.

The PHB set the general rule to use spells with the Casting Spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)section. Therefore anything else has to obey this rule or call out specific exceptions to alter em. Anything that changes needs to be explicitly called out.

SLA make use of spells:
Their description is worded to show the "difference" to "Casting Spells". Nothing implies that it stops to be "Casting Spells" here. There ain't no new rule category for using spells. Or do you see any new "defined" (name + description paragraph) mechanisms to use spells here? I only see how SLA make altered use of the "Casting Spells" rule.

Spell Trigger items:
Same here, it describes the difference to "Casting Spells". Why would it do that if not for a reason. It could have just explained how they work for themselves without comparing em to "Casting Spells". Again nothing implies that is stops as counting "Casting Spells" here.

Crafting see below..

Depending on what kind of item you're creating, the rules for creating that item will specify additional costs. For example, the rules for scribing a scroll say that you must provide any material component that the spell requires and that 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 item creation rules don't seem to care if you would pay the material component cost for a spell - only that the spell requires one. If the spell requires a costly material component, you must supply that material component as an additional crafting cost to create the item.
The item creation rules don't seem to care if you're actually casting the spell. If casting the spell would reduce the caster's XP, you pay additional XP as a crafting cost to create the item.
You don't need to supply extra materials or additional XP for "casting" the spell; you pay them as additional crafting costs to create the item.

Warlocks gain the ability to make a UMD check to ignore the spell requirement for item creation. Warlocks do not gain the ability to ignore parts of the item creation process other than knowing the prerequisite spell. Supplying 50 times the material component cost of a spell to craft a wand is not the cost of casting the spell - it's the cost of crafting the wand, per the wand crafting rules. They pay for material components and XP costs as a function of the item creation feat in question, not as part of "casting" the necessary spell.
Again Primary Source Rule:
The crafting feats alter the "Component" (V,S,M,F,XP..) rules in the PHB (like SLA also alter em). If you read each of the crafting feats carefully, you'll see that the Component costs are "added" on the crafting costs (on top). It doesn't "increase" the base crafting cost! It gets added to it.
Compare it with taxes in real life. They get "added" on the base price of an item you purchase, but it is still a separate cost and doesn't "increase" the base value of the item.
Therefore all crafting feats still use altered Components rules. Just have a look at my Power Attack example from my first post/quote: Just because you Power Attack (altering attack rules), your Power Attack doesn't stop counting as normal "attack".

_____________

Due to Primary Source Rule anything spell related has to follow the "Casting Spells" rules (or alter them for their niche).

The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game,...
This rule says that anything in the PHB is primary source and thus to be considered "general" rules for anything related outside of the PHB.

Darg

2021-03-05, 12:55 AM

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 01:25 AM

An example of a case where "expending a spell slot isn't casting a spell" might actually matter - an Exalted Wizard, or Sorcerer, creating a Protection from Good spell scroll, or similar item.

Actually casting an Evil spell is an Evil act and will lose the Exalted Wizard the benefits of whatever Exalted feat they've got.

But given that the spell is not actually being cast in the process of creating the item, the wizard may be able to create the item, for the rare cases in which casting Protection from Good might be a sensible thing to do for Good characters.

And hand it over to the party thief, who can UMD-cast it, so the wizard doesn't actually have to suffer the penalties once the scroll is actually activated.

GeoffWatson

2021-03-05, 01:32 AM

some people think the warlocks ability means they arent actually casting the spells so they dont have to pay the exp cost of the spell when crafting something that includes the spell. ie they still have to pay the base crafting cost of exp but not any additional from the spell if it has a normal exp cost. afaik thats the debate here. rai and gruft disagree on whether they have to pay the spells base exp component or not.

Of course they have to pay the XP costs. I don't see how the item creation rules are unclear.

You should have mentioned what exploit you were discussing, why be tricky if you want an actual answer?

Darg

2021-03-05, 09:21 AM

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 09:38 AM

Vaern

2021-03-05, 11:48 AM

It does have an element of "passing the buck" (with the moral weight being made out to be on the person who reads the scroll rather than the person who writes the scroll) - but in a situation such as villains mind-controlling guardinals (NG celestials) to attack, Protection from Good is the only thing that works to keep them away, and it does not harm the attacking guardinals.

"Protect yourself from attacking Good beings, without harming them, when they are being mind controlled" is exactly the sort of strategy that Good beings would use. The only issue is the slightly questionable "casting an evil spell" - so, have someone else do it, then help them atone.
Even if you're not using it yourself, you're bringing a conduit for evil into the world by creating the item and actively encouraging someone else to commit an evil act by using it which is arguably just as bad as, if not worse than, just doing it yourself. You're basically telling someone else to embrace corruption for your benefit so that you can spare yourself, which is prudent and selfish. Besides, if they're casting an [evil] spell on you then you are probably - as an exalted character - obligated to make a saving throw against it. There's no reason why resorting to an [evil] spell in this case should be considered as your first or best option, especially as an exalted character.

Protection from evil cast on a mind-controlled target suppresses the effect for its duration. This effectively ends the encounter immediately, rather than simply making you more difficult to hit for the remainder of the encounter while you desperately try coming up with a way to subdue the guardinal without killing it. "Protect the good thing from evil" is probably a better reaction to the situation for a good character, rather than "protect myself from the good thing."
And once you've hit your guardinal with protection from evil, you don't need to worry about it falling off. Avorals can cast magic circle against evil on themselves at-will, and leonals have a constant passive protective aura that acts as magic circle against evil. Both of these suppress mind control effects on anyone within 10 feet. How did your guardinals get mind-controlled to begin with?

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 12:24 PM

Whether or not the RAI allows a Good wizard to craft an [evil] scroll without counting as "committing an Evil act" the point that I'm making is that the RAW may allow it.

unseenmage

2021-03-05, 12:37 PM

Gallowglass

2021-03-05, 12:47 PM

Just thing of "triggers the spell" as premature ejaculation

There you are, pounding on your magic armor when... oops... well there goes that spell.... *blushes and looks around sheepishly*

Vaern

2021-03-05, 01:35 PM

Whether or not the RAI allows a Good wizard to craft an [evil] scroll without counting as "committing an Evil act" the point that I'm making is that the RAW may allow it.

Even if we were to agree that the act of crafting the scroll was not an evil act in and of itself, it's a moot point in this particular example because the scroll still can't be used without ruining the wizard.

[Good characters] must steer their neutral companions away from evil deeds, and ought to encourage them toward goodness... Good characters can be guilty by association with neutral characters who commit evil deeds, and simply turning a blind eye to the questionable acts of their companions is not an acceptable option.

An exalted wizard can't use the scroll himself, nor can he encourage someone else to do so without losing exalted status. Creating the scroll serves literally no purpose other than putting the wizard's exalted status in jeopardy. The wizard might be able to get away with crafting the scroll, he will still fall if he ever allows the scroll to be used. The strategy as a whole - using item creation rules as a loophole to "not cast" an evil spell and "pass the buck" to someone else to remain exalted - simply does not work by RAW.

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 01:41 PM

JNAProductions

2021-03-05, 01:46 PM

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 01:53 PM

And the onus is on those who use the scrolls.

Basically "There's a bad guy out there who likes to use NG beings as cannon fodder for their own perverse reasons - so I'm making you these scrolls (or rings, or potions, or whatever) and letting you decide if the situation merits using them or not."

Vaern

2021-03-05, 02:14 PM

"Questionable acts" that don't harm the innocent, are much more acceptable to Good characters in general, than ones that do are.

"Allowing an evil act to happen" can be fall-worthy - but it isn't always so. Especially not when the alternative is significantly worse.
Using the scroll would cause the wizard to fall. An evil spell is an evil act, regardless of whether it harms the innocent. The average good character might let it slide, but an exalted character doesn't get to pick and choose what's allowed based on how evil the act is. The decision to submit to the lesser of two evils is not a decision that an exalted character is allowed to make.

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

There's no way around it. An exalted character can not resort to committing an evil act or cast an evil spell, no matter how small, nor can he encourage or enable someone else to perform such an act in his place, no matter how great an evil this seemingly insignificant act may help to defeat, without losing exalted status. An exalted character can not knowingly and willingly abide evil, period, by RAW.

And the onus is on those who use the scrolls.

Basically "There's a bad guy out there who likes to use NG beings as cannon fodder for their own perverse reasons - so I'm making you these scrolls (or rings, or potions, or whatever) and letting you decide if the situation merits using them or not."
This goes back to the bit I previously pointed to, where an exalted character must steer his companions away from evil deeds. Putting an evil item in their hands and telling them that they're free to use them if they decide the situation merits it is the exact opposite of that - you're literally encouraging and enabling them to commit evil acts.

JNAProductions

2021-03-05, 02:28 PM

Using the scroll would cause the wizard to fall. An evil spell is an evil act, regardless of whether it harms the innocent. The average good character might let it slide, but an exalted character doesn't get to pick and choose what's allowed based on how evil the act is. The decision to submit to the lesser of two evils is not a decision that an exalted character is allowed to make.

There's no way around it. An exalted character can not resort to committing an evil act or cast an evil spell, no matter how small, nor can he encourage or enable someone else to perform such an act in his place, no matter how great an evil this seemingly insignificant act may help to defeat, without losing exalted status. An exalted character can not knowingly and willingly abide evil, period, by RAW.

This goes back to the bit I previously pointed to, where an exalted character must steer his companions away from evil deeds. Putting an evil item in their hands and telling them that they're free to use them if they decide the situation merits it is the exact opposite of that - you're literally encouraging and enabling them to commit evil acts.

So then how does an Exalted character deal with mind-controlled NG Outsiders attacking them?

Raishoiken

2021-03-05, 02:35 PM

I argue that sole one has RAW support. Because ... thx due to ERRATA we have the PRIMARY SOURCE RULE. You know, the rule that is supposed to solve conflict like these xD
If this is not the situation to apply it then when?^^

explanation see below.

As I quoted in my first post in this thread:
The Primary Source Rules say the PHB is the primary source for playing the game. Any other source needs to treat the PHB as general rule(s). As such they can only change those things mentioned for their niche and anything else stays.

The PHB set the general rule to use spells with the Casting Spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)section. Therefore anything else has to obey this rule or call out specific exceptions to alter em. Anything that changes needs to be explicitly called out.

SLA make use of spells:
Their description is worded to show the "difference" to "Casting Spells". Nothing implies that it stops to be "Casting Spells" here. There ain't no new rule category for using spells. Or do you see any new "defined" (name + description paragraph) mechanisms to use spells here? I only see how SLA make altered use of the "Casting Spells" rule.

Spell Trigger items:
Same here, it describes the difference to "Casting Spells". Why would it do that if not for a reason. It could have just explained how they work for themselves without comparing em to "Casting Spells". Again nothing implies that is stops as counting "Casting Spells" here.

Crafting see below..

Again Primary Source Rule:
The crafting feats alter the "Component" (V,S,M,F,XP..) rules in the PHB (like SLA also alter em). If you read each of the crafting feats carefully, you'll see that the Component costs are "added" on the crafting costs (on top). It doesn't "increase" the base crafting cost! It gets added to it.
Compare it with taxes in real life. They get "added" on the base price of an item you purchase, but it is still a separate cost and doesn't "increase" the base value of the item.
Therefore all crafting feats still use altered Components rules. Just have a look at my Power Attack example from my first post/quote: Just because you Power Attack (altering attack rules), your Power Attack doesn't stop counting as normal "attack".

_____________

Due to Primary Source Rule anything spell related has to follow the "Casting Spells" rules (or alter them for their niche).

This rule says that anything in the PHB is primary source and thus to be considered "general" rules for anything related outside of the PHB.

there's really only one other way to say it:

the PHB is the primary source for casting spells, not using spells in general. There are more ways than casting spells that you can use them, and sometimes they refer to spellcasting rules (i the case of using a spell like ability). Do you honestly believe using a spell-like ability is the same as casting a spell? And no not that they produce similar effects, that they are in fact casting spells. You haven't proved you're casting spells., you just proved that if there is another rule elsewhere that disagrees with the casting spells rules, that the phb takes precedence. Since the crafting rules don't disagree at all, and are in fact using the crafting rules, which use spells by triggering the energy in the caster's mind that they use to hold spells (the glossary description for spell slots) during the process rather than them actually casting the spell.

You clearly understand how PSR works, you're just applying it incorrectly here. And also ignoring the fact that it is literally telling you that trigger and cast is different.

Can you address why the crafting rules say that trigger and cast are different things?

hamishspence

2021-03-05, 02:38 PM

So then how does an Exalted character deal with mind-controlled NG Outsiders attacking them?Apparently they're supposed to get in close, touch them (despite the attacks), cast Protection from Evil, and hope they fail their saves against it, with the spell blocking the domination effect or mental control while the spell is active.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm

However, mind control isn't the only reason they might be attacking you. They might simply have been tricked, by someone using a Glibness spell, for example to convince them that you are the enemy.

Raishoiken

2021-03-05, 03:11 PM

Apparently they're supposed to get in close, touch them (despite the attacks), cast Protection from Evil, and hope they fail their saves against it, with the spell blocking the domination effect or mental control while the spell is active.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm

However, mind control isn't the only reason they might be attacking you. They might simply have been tricked, by someone using a Glibness spell, for example to convince them that you are the enemy.

choosing to deal subdual damage instead of killing them would likely help too, although that says nothing of the casting of evil spells

Vaern

2021-03-05, 04:08 PM

So then how does an Exalted character deal with mind-controlled NG Outsiders attacking them?
By casting protection from evil on the affected creature to suppress the mind control effect, or casting magic circle against evil on himself and getting within 10 feet of the affected creature to suppress the mind control effect, as I've already mentioned.
I believe I also mentioned that most good outsiders won't normally be subject to mind control to begin with. Of the two guardinals in the monster manual, avorals can cast magic circle against evil at-will and leonals have a persistent protective aura that grants the magic circle effect which makes them effectively immune to mind control. Angels and archon also all have persistent magic circle effects that surround them as common traits for their subtypes. In the unlikely event that any of these creatures gets minds controlled, all you need to do is suppress that kind control effect for one round so they can turn their magic circle back on.

However, mind control isn't the only reason they might be attacking you. They might simply have been tricked, by someone using a Glibness spell, for example to convince them that you are the enemy.
In that case, all you need to do is convince them otherwise. An exalted character radiates a powerful aura of good which is going to be very difficult to dispute even with a ludicrous bonus to bluff. There are spells to hide an alignment aura and spells to produce false magic auras, but I can't think of any ways to produce a false alignment aura off the top of my head.

Remuko

2021-03-05, 04:36 PM

Of course they have to pay the XP costs. I don't see how the item creation rules are unclear.

You should have mentioned what exploit you were discussing, why be tricky if you want an actual answer?

i was just explaining the others argument. i have no horse in this race. its almost entirely Rai vs Gruft. One of them thinks Warlocks ability lets you ignore all costs including the exp cost (just from the "cast" of the spell) the other does not.

Raishoiken

2021-03-05, 04:43 PM

By casting protection from evil on the affected creature to suppress the mind control effect, or casting magic circle against evil on himself and getting within 10 feet of the affected creature to suppress the mind control effect, as I've already mentioned.
I believe I also mentioned that most good outsiders won't normally be subject to mind control to begin with. Of the two guardinals in the monster manual, avorals can cast magic circle against evil at-will and leonals have a persistent protective aura that grants the magic circle effect which makes them effectively immune to mind control. Angels and archon also all have persistent magic circle effects that surround them as common traits for their subtypes. In the unlikely event that any of these creatures gets minds controlled, all you need to do is suppress that kind control effect for one round so they can turn their magic circle back on.

In that case, all you need to do is convince them otherwise. An exalted character radiates a powerful aura of good which is going to be very difficult to dispute even with a ludicrous bonus to bluff. There are spells to hide an alignment aura and spells to produce false magic auras, but I can't think of any ways to produce a false alignment aura off the top of my head.

and none of these activations of their Spell-like abilities constitutes spellcasting

unseenmage

2021-03-05, 05:31 PM

Shield Guardians explicitly cast their stored spell.
Spellsong Nightingale, while not a from a hardback source, also casts its spells.

There's SLAs with cast language sprinkled about all over iirc. The devs wobbled through 3.0, 3.5, and even PF on the state of SLAs being cast or not. Seems to come down to whether the writers remembered to not use the word "cast" or not to and if their editor even knew it to be inappropriate or appropriate in that context.

Or so it was explained to me by our IRL group's resident rules guru.

Raishoiken

2021-03-05, 08:08 PM

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-05, 10:36 PM

Since the shield guardian template says that it 'casts the stored spell' does that make it a spellcaster who can take metamagoc feats or contribute to the creation of a magic item?

Less facetiously, can stored spells in the golem or even a spell storing item be used in magic item creation?
By RAW, you can use anything that provides the spell for crafting: Scrolls, Wands, SLA's..

there's really only one other way to say it:

the PHB is the primary source for casting spells, not using spells in general.
"The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions."
The PHB sets the rules how things normally are supposed to work. Since PHB lists sole "Casting Spells" as option to use spells, it is the "general" rule to use spells due to the PSR. Any other source that makes use of spells alter "Casting Spells". These abilities are always targeting "Casting Spells" with their wording. They make changes for their niche (SLA, spell trigger items, crafting feats..). Let me ask you this: Can you interpret e.g. SLA rules in a vacuum together with "spells" but in the absence of "Casting Spells"? No, because the text of SLA is making changes to "Casting Spells", not to "spells".

There are more ways than casting spells that you can use them, and sometimes they refer to spellcasting rules (i the case of using a spell like ability).
Sure there are other non-general but specific ways to "cast spells", like SLA, Spell Trigger items and crafting feats. All of them need "Casting Spells" as target. Otherwise the changes they are trying to make, doesn't make any sense at all (in the absence of a target).
And just because the "Casting Spells" rules get altered, that doesn't stop the altered process from counting as "Casting Spells". See my Power Attack reference: Just because you alter the general attack rules to make "Power Attack(s)", that doesn't stop em from counting as "Attacks" in any other way. Unless the ability doesn't call out a new category (and properly defines it in a 3.5 way: e.g. written bold with its own rule text) the former label stays. None of the spell using abilities/items provide rules that would change the "Casting Spells" label.

Do you honestly believe using a spell-like ability is the same as casting a spell? And no not that they produce similar effects, that they are in fact casting spells. You haven't proved you're casting spells., you just proved that if there is another rule elsewhere that disagrees with the casting spells rules, that the phb takes precedence. Since the crafting rules don't disagree at all, and are in fact using the crafting rules, which use spells by triggering the energy in the caster's mind that they use to hold spells (the glossary description for spell slots) during the process rather than them actually casting the spell.

count as != same
Since the other things alter the "Casting Spells" rule it is not the same. But they still count as "Casting Spells" since no change has been made for their niche about that aspect.
I provided the info from the PSR that the PHB provides all (general) rules to play the game. I've shown how everything that uses spells alters the "Casting Spells"rule. And others have provided examples of SLA that mention that they are still spell casts. Just because not all of em mention (or remind you of) that, doesn't change anything here.

You clearly understand how PSR works, you're just applying it incorrectly here. And also ignoring the fact that it is literally telling you that trigger and cast is different.

Can you address why the crafting rules say that trigger and cast are different things?
Can you give me a link here pls so that we are on the same page? If it is properly worded I might change my point of view here. If it is worded poorly or gets ignored by PSR, I can try to address/explain it.

Darg

2021-03-06, 12:18 AM

I know that phaerimms are actually casting their spells as spell-like abilities

They cast spells as a sorcerer. They just use them as if they were SLAs and explains what that means (no component costs except for xp). if something only affects spells then they would affect the phearimm's spells. Likewise, ability focus wouldn't work on a phearimm's spells.

Raishoiken

2021-03-06, 01:46 AM

They cast spells as a sorcerer. They just use them as if they were SLAs and explains what that means (no component costs except for xp). if something only affects spells then they would affect the phearimm's spells. Likewise, ability focus wouldn't work on a phearimm's spells.

this is what i meant by what i said, just worded poorly

By RAW, you can use anything that provides the spell for crafting: Scrolls, Wands, SLA's..

.
"The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions."
The PHB sets the rules how things normally are supposed to work. Since PHB lists sole "Casting Spells" as option to use spells, it is the "general" rule to use spells due to the PSR. Any other source that makes use of spells alter "Casting Spells". These abilities are always targeting "Casting Spells" with their wording. They make changes for their niche (SLA, spell trigger items, crafting feats..). Let me ask you this: Can you interpret e.g. SLA rules in a vacuum together with "spells" but in the absence of "Casting Spells"? No, because the text of SLA is making changes to "Casting Spells", not to "spells".

Sure there are other non-general but specific ways to "cast spells", like SLA, Spell Trigger items and crafting feats. All of them need "Casting Spells" as target. Otherwise the changes they are trying to make, doesn't make any sense at all (in the absence of a target).
And just because the "Casting Spells" rules get altered, that doesn't stop the altered process from counting as "Casting Spells". See my Power Attack reference: Just because you alter the general attack rules to make "Power Attack(s)", that doesn't stop em from counting as "Attacks" in any other way. Unless the ability doesn't call out a new category (and properly defines it in a 3.5 way: e.g. written bold with its own rule text) the former label stays. None of the spell using abilities/items provide rules that would change the "Casting Spells" label.

count as != same
Since the other things alter the "Casting Spells" rule it is not the same. But they still count as "Casting Spells" since no change has been made for their niche about that aspect.
I provided the info from the PSR that the PHB provides all (general) rules to play the game. I've shown how everything that uses spells alters the "Casting Spells"rule. And others have provided examples of SLA that mention that they are still spell casts. Just because not all of em mention (or remind you of) that, doesn't change anything here.

Can you give me a link here pls so that we are on the same page? If it is properly worded I might change my point of view here. If it is worded poorly or gets ignored by PSR, I can try to address/explain it.

is it:

a:the phb says casting spells is the only way spells are used? and therefore every other way spells are used is casting spells?
or
b: Casting spells is the only use of spells that the phb covers? and therefore any rules that involve spells must be casting spells?

which of those two are you trying to say here? because they require mildly different answers

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-06, 02:15 AM

this is what i meant by what i said, just worded poorly

is it:

a:the phb says casting spells is the only way spells are used? and therefore every other way spells are used is casting spells?
or
b: Casting spells is the only use of spells that the phb covers? and therefore any rules that involve spells must be casting spells?

which of those two are you trying to say here? because they require mildly different answers

can I pick C:?^^

C: the PHB sets "Casting Spells" as the general rule to use spells. An ability can make exceptions and explicitly deny this status, but that requires a clear wording/intend to do so. Unless you can provide text that says something like "this ability is not a spell cast" or a new defined category (e.g. Bold written with rule text added) that can replace "Casting Spells", it just alters those rules.

Have a look again at my Power Attack example. Or any other (even class) ability that changes regular attacks. Do they stop being attacks? No. Because that wasn't part of the changes. They only alter how you "attack". Not the label "attack".

Same here with "Casting Spells". Anything I've seen that uses spells so far, alters the "Casting Spells"rule. None of em denies it status/label and thus still have it (the status to count as "Casting Spells").

Raishoiken

2021-03-06, 12:58 PM

can I pick C:?^^

C: the PHB sets "Casting Spells" as the general rule to use spells. An ability can make exceptions and explicitly deny this status, but that requires a clear wording/intend to do so. Unless you can provide text that says something like "this ability is not a spell cast" or a new defined category (e.g. Bold written with rule text added) that can replace "Casting Spells", it just alters those rules.

You thinking thus us why youre entire premise is wrong. The phb doesnt liating "casting spells" as the "primary rule for using spells" that needs a specific exception to be called out by saying "you are not casting spells" in order for the way someone is using a spell to not count as casting spells. You picked B essentially by saying " the phb says casting spells tho" and are trying yo say that it means that anything involving spells also involves spells being cast

In order to be doing something in the game, the game has to tell you that you are doing it, and it doesnt say you're casting spells

The PSR bit says

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources , unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence . 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...

1: Like i said before: the PSR deals with disagreements/contradiction between rules on specific topics. The phb is the primary sourcebook for the rules oncasting spells full stop. Not using spells, casting them. The phb doesnt say, as youre asserting, that this is the eay thzt spells are used and that all other ways spells are used alters this. Thats the first error you make

2:The second error you make is that there isn't even a contradiction: the dmg says you place a spell in an item by triggering it, and since nowhere in the phb does it talk about the topic of triggering spells, there is not a single rules disagreement, so triggering not being casting stands

3: Also in the english language, when two things are compared with an as if clause, the two things being compared are being shown to be behaving in a similar way despite being different things. This is your third error which is the most forgivable one if it isnt your first language

These are the three things you have to find a way to prove wrong, all three of them, to be correcr. If you try to do so by repeating juat saying "psr says casting is the only way" without providing a line of text that says other rules that use spells are casting explicitly (since i have proven the basic psr arguement is wrong) then you have essentially conceded

Jay R

2021-03-06, 01:26 PM

The rules tell us things that have mechanical effects, and leave out 10,000 things that don't.

They tell us what a material component for a spell is, because that effects whether or not the caster can cast it. it doesn't tell us what the somatic component or the verbal component is, because that information is not needed to play the game.

They tell us materials for writing a spell in a spellbook cost 100 gp per page, but they don't identify what the materials are. They tell us that creating a magic item requires one day of work for each 1,000 gp of the base price, but they don't tell us what that work is -- because we don't need to know in order to play the game.

Similarly, they tell us that when creating a magic item, a spell slot is used up by that spell for the day -- because that affects how many other spells the caster can memorize that day. It doesn't tell us what use the crafter makes of that memorized spell, because that information is not needed to play the game.

I suspect that the rules writer didn't even decide whether or not the spell is cast in the normal way, just as I assume the writers never decided what the somatic and verbal components for each spell are.

There is no way to determine what the "real" answer is, if the game designers never chose to choose one.

In my game, I would rule that it isn't cast in the normal sense, for the very simple reason that a caster can make a wand of fireballs in a 20x20 foot room without burning himself.

That's a DM judgment call, and your DM may decide something different. And that's fine.

But the crucial facts are these:
1. The rules don't make it clear.
2. That information is not needed to play the game.
3. We have no reason to believe that the writers ever decided.
4. Therefore there is no canonical answer.

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-06, 07:21 PM

You thinking thus us why youre entire premise is wrong. The phb doesnt liating "casting spells" as the "primary rule for using spells" that needs a specific exception to be called out by saying "you are not casting spells" in order for the way someone is using a spell to not count as casting spells. You picked B essentially by saying " the phb says casting spells tho" and are trying yo say that it means that anything involving spells also involves spells being cast

In order to be doing something in the game, the game has to tell you that you are doing it, and it doesnt say you're casting spells

The PSR bit says

1: Like i said before: the PSR deals with disagreements/contradiction between rules on specific topics. The phb is the primary sourcebook for the rules oncasting spells full stop. Not using spells, casting them. The phb doesnt say, as youre asserting, that this is the eay thzt spells are used and that all other ways spells are used alters this. Thats the first error you make

2:The second error you make is that there isn't even a contradiction: the dmg says you place a spell in an item by triggering it, and since nowhere in the phb does it talk about the topic of triggering spells, there is not a single rules disagreement, so triggering not being casting stands

3: Also in the english language, when two things are compared with an as if clause, the two things being compared are being shown to be behaving in a similar way despite being different things. This is your third error which is the most forgivable one if it isnt your first language

These are the three things you have to find a way to prove wrong, all three of them, to be correcr. If you try to do so by repeating juat saying "psr says casting is the only way" without providing a line of text that says other rules that use spells are casting explicitly (since i have proven the basic psr arguement is wrong) then you have essentially conceded
My interpretation doesn't rely on "a disagreement between two... rules sources". That assumption is not correct. If you follow my interpretation of the PSR, it prevents that any disagreement occurs at all. It is your interpretation that leaves crafting with an undefined form to activate/use the spell while crafting. Maybe you should question your own point of view here?

1. The PHB is the primary source for "Spells" and "Casting Spells". You wanna use spells? You find the "all the rules for playing the game" in the PHB. This is confirmed by the fact that any changes made by SLA, Spell Trigger items and cafting feats to use spells target the "Casting Spells" rule. They change the "Components" needed. Thus they are targeting them to change em. You are trying to view "Casting Spells" and "Spells" in a vacuum and not part of the very same primary source with "all rules for playing the game". Since the PHB lists "Casting Spells" as general rule for "Spells", anything else spell related has to obey it.

2. The PHB gives you "Spells" and "Casting Spells" as general rules to play the game. Anything that uses spells has to follow these rules or alter them for their niche. And surprise surprise, all of them do exactly that. They tharget the "Casting Spells" rule and alter them according to their needs.

3. I'm not aware that I would have ever said that "they are the same in every aspect". I argue that they all still count as "Casting Spells", since that is the rule they alter and use in its altered form.
Compare it with my Power Attack example again: Do you strictly follow the general attack rules when making a Power Attack? No, you follow the altered "attack rules" that Power Attack creates for its niche. But it is still an "attack", because no changes where mentioned regarding that.
Same with SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats. They all refer to the regular "Casting Spells" rule by showing you the changes you need to do. But the text never touches the topic to rename or re-categorize what it is. As such it is still using the altered "Casting Spells" rule and still counts as that therefore. If a Power Attack still counts as an Attack, then the crafting process is still "Casting Spells" in an altered form.

The dysfunction (contradicting rules) only occur if you ignore that the PSR sets all rules in the PHB as general rule. It causes the warlocks ability to become dysfunctional and prevents you from counterspelling SLA, spell trigger items and the like.
But if you follow my point that the PSR sets the entire PHB as general rule, everything is in function and no dysfunction occurs. SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats alter "Casting Spells" as they need, the warlocks Imbue Item works without any issue. And all the quotes presented in this thread of "SLA still counting as spells being cast" doesn't become bothersome.

Your interpretation still ignores that "the Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game.." and thus leads to dysfunctional abilities and weird counterspell interactions. My common sense demands to pick the interpretation that causes the least problems here, which would be mine.

Raishoiken

2021-03-06, 07:54 PM

My interpretation doesn't rely on "a disagreement between two... rules sources". That assumption is not correct. If you follow my interpretation of the PSR, it prevents that any disagreement occurs at all. It is your interpretation that leaves crafting with an undefined form to activate/use the spell while crafting. Maybe you should question your own point of view here?

1. The PHB is the primary source for "Spells" and "Casting Spells". You wanna use spells? You find the "all the rules for playing the game" in the PHB. This is confirmed by the fact that any changes made by SLA, Spell Trigger items and cafting feats to use spells target the "Casting Spells" rule. They change the "Components" needed. Thus they are targeting them to change em. You are trying to view "Casting Spells" and "Spells" in a vacuum and not part of the very same primary source with "all rules for playing the game". Since the PHB lists "Casting Spells" as general rule for "Spells", anything else spell related has to obey it.

2. The PHB gives you "Spells" and "Casting Spells" as general rules to play the game. Anything that uses spells has to follow these rules or alter them for their niche. And surprise surprise, all of them do exactly that. They tharget the "Casting Spells" rule and alter them according to their needs.

3. I'm not aware that I would have ever said that "they are the same in every aspect". I argue that they all still count as "Casting Spells", since that is the rule they alter and use in its altered form.
Compare it with my Power Attack example again: Do you strictly follow the general attack rules when making a Power Attack? No, you follow the altered "attack rules" that Power Attack creates for its niche. But it is still an "attack", because no changes where mentioned regarding that.
Same with SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats. They all refer to the regular "Casting Spells" rule by showing you the changes you need to do. But the text never touches the topic to rename or re-categorize what it is. As such it is still using the altered "Casting Spells" rule and still counts as that therefore. If a Power Attack still counts as an Attack, then the crafting process is still "Casting Spells" in an altered form.

The dysfunction (contradicting rules) only occur if you ignore that the PSR sets all rules in the PHB as general rule. It causes the warlocks ability to become dysfunctional and prevents you from counterspelling SLA, spell trigger items and the like.
But if you follow my point that the PSR sets the entire PHB as general rule, everything is in function and no dysfunction occurs. SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats alter "Casting Spells" as they need, the warlocks Imbue Item works without any issue. And all the quotes presented in this thread of "SLA still counting as spells being cast" doesn't become bothersome.

Your interpretation still ignores that "the Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game.." and thus leads to dysfunctional abilities and weird counterspell interactions. My common sense demands to pick the interpretation that causes the least problems here, which would be mine.

Im not saying you're interpretation relies on there being a disagreement, because im aware of what youre arguing.

What im saying is that the psr statement itself, which i posted, is what says that in order for you to needinvoke the clause there must be a disagreement between the two rules sources. Seeing as how nothing in the crafting section contradicts anything in the phb, the psr errata sectiom is completely irrelevent to the conversation.

You dont have to alter a rule you arent using at all. Since the psr doesnt have anything to do with this situatiom, and the fact that the phb only covers what happens when you cast a spell and not what happens when you put it in an item, the dmg (which the psr even calls out) says that instead of casting the spell, which would immediately produce the spell effect in some way, you are triggering the stored mental energy simply by working on the item.

Since saying that youre triggering the spell instead of casting it does not disagree with any other rule (since the phb doesnt say that if you want to use spells you must refer to the casting rules) the psr concept doesnt even come into play.
The literal only item you could even come close to arguing this for would be scrolls since youre literally performing most of the spellcasting involved during the creation, but this is also explicitly stated to be Whats happening if i remember right

But the crucial facts are these:
1. The rules don't make it clear.
2. That information is not needed to play the game.
3. We have no reason to believe that the writers ever decided.
4. Therefore there is no canonical answer.

I would argue that the very language of the crafting itself kind of implies it through the entire line about triggering the spell during crafting, expending a slot as if cast.
If there was spellcasting really going on i feel like there would be no need to add that line. Even adding "as if cast in the usual/normal fashion" would tip the implication towards you actually casting it just in a different way

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-07, 01:37 AM

Im not saying you're interpretation relies on there being a disagreement, because im aware of what youre arguing.

What im saying is that the psr statement itself, which i posted, is what says that in order for you to needinvoke the clause there must be a disagreement between the two rules sources. Seeing as how nothing in the crafting section contradicts anything in the phb, the psr errata sectiom is completely irrelevent to the conversation.

You dont have to alter a rule you arent using at all. Since the psr doesnt have anything to do with this situatiom, and the fact that the phb only covers what happens when you cast a spell and not what happens when you put it in an item, the dmg (which the psr even calls out) says that instead of casting the spell, which would immediately produce the spell effect in some way, you are triggering the stored mental energy simply by working on the item.

Since saying that youre triggering the spell instead of casting it does not disagree with any other rule (since the phb doesnt say that if you want to use spells you must refer to the casting rules) the psr concept doesnt even come into play.
The literal only item you could even come close to arguing this for would be scrolls since youre literally performing most of the spellcasting involved during the creation, but this is also explicitly stated to be Whats happening if i remember right

You still don't get the full purpose of the PSR. It is not sole meant to solve contradicting rules. It is also there to prevent that such situations occur at all when you follow it (e.g Warlocks Imbue Item ability under your interpretation).

Do you know where the rule base for the term "Specific beats General" comes? From the PSR. Because the PSR explains to you how you can determine the which rule is which one (general or specific). And if you follow this "General beats Specific" rule, you end up with my interpretation.

You try to reduce the application of the PSR to sole those situations where a dysfunction occurs. But the PSR is a rule that determines the rule Hierarchy and thus applies all the time! As soon as you are connecting 2 rules, the PSR is at duty. It says how you have to connect rules.
SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats all alter the general way in the PHB described to "Cast Spells" for their specific niche.

The PSR is all about rule hierarchy. The part about contradictions rules (Specific beats General) is just a byproduct of that hierarchy and is just mentioned first, so that the reader knows whats the purpose of the rule is (solving/preventing dysfunctions). It is the conclusion, that if everything has to follow "general rules", that you can only make "specific exceptions" for you niche. You have to apply that hierarchy whenever you can (and not only when you feel like it).

Raishoiken

2021-03-07, 04:44 PM

You still don't get the full purpose of the PSR. It is not sole meant to solve contradicting rules. It is also there to prevent that such situations occur at all when you follow it (e.g Warlocks Imbue Item ability under your interpretation).

Do you know where the rule base for the term "Specific beats General" comes? From the PSR. Because the PSR explains to you how you can determine the which rule is which one (general or specific). And if you follow this "General beats Specific" rule, you end up with my interpretation.

You try to reduce the application of the PSR to sole those situations where a dysfunction occurs. But the PSR is a rule that determines the rule Hierarchy and thus applies all the time! As soon as you are connecting 2 rules, the PSR is at duty. It says how you have to connect rules.
SLA, Spell Trigger items and Crafting feats all alter the general way in the PHB described to "Cast Spells" for their specific niche.

The PSR is all about rule hierarchy. The part about contradictions rules (Specific beats General) is just a byproduct of that hierarchy and is just mentioned first, so that the reader knows whats the purpose of the rule is (solving/preventing dysfunctions). It is the conclusion, that if everything has to follow "general rules", that you can only make "specific exceptions" for you niche. You have to apply that hierarchy whenever you can (and not only when you feel like it).

Let's see if you can help me find where here mentions anything like you're saying.

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

It's literally the first line bud. When theres a disagreement, refer to the primary source. There is no disagreement

One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. 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.

Hey look, still talking aboit disagreements. Nothing about "altering" the first rules that introduce a concept here's the rest just incase it's hidden somewhere in here

The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Guess not
The part about rules contradictions is literally the only case it says you need to refer back to the "primary book".

So, where is the rules disagreement?

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-07, 09:23 PM

Let's see if you can help me find where here mentions anything like you're saying.

It's literally the first line bud. When theres a disagreement, refer to the primary source. There is no disagreement

Hey look, still talking aboit disagreements. Nothing about "altering" the first rules that introduce a concept here's the rest just incase it's hidden somewhere in here

Guess not
The part about rules contradictions is literally the only case it says you need to refer back to the "primary book".

So, where is the rules disagreement?
As said, the rule is there for you to build a rule hierarchy when you use multiple rules to get the right outcome. Reducing the PSR to only if "your" interpretation causes dysfunction wouldn't work out well... Just imagine it, whenever someone's interpretation fails and causes a dysfunction he should rely on this rule? No, you use this rule to prevent such situation to occur at all. This is enforced by the fact that the PSR defines how you determine which rule is general and specific to each other as soon as you use 2 rules.

And if you really want a dysfunction, take the warlocks Imbue Item ability that stops to work under your interpretation. Now you have to apply the PSR even under your half-backed interpretation (to only use it when a dysfuntion appears..). This enforces you to take "Spells" and "Casting Spells" from the PHB as Primary Source. And guess the outcome.. Everything is now "Casting Spells" since it has become the general rule now.

You apply the Primary Source rule always when you use 2 rules. It's just that in most chases you don't notice it since no dysfunction occurs. As with my Power Attack example. As soon as you want to use Power Attack (specific) & the general "attack" rules, PSR is at duty. It is there to make sure that the Power Attack still counts as Attack and as such reacts accordingly to anything else that might target it as Attack.

So far you failed to acknowledge that the crafting rules target and alter the "Casting Spells"rule. As such, they can only change what they say that they change. And nowhere does it claim to stop counting as "Casting Spell" (same as with Power Attack not denying its "attack" status). I don't need to see a dysfunction to see that crafting makes use of "Casting Spell" rules since it describes the changes compared to "Casting Spell" and thus relies on it (like Power Attack relies on "Attack" rules). Show me where the crafting rules make a clear statement of denial about their status as "Casting Spells".

edit: here you have a disagreement caused by "crafting feats".
The crafting feats describe another way how you use "Spells". As such, it disagrees with the rule how you normally play out "Spells" accordingly to the PHB (the book that provides all rules to play the game). It disagrees with "Casting Spells" and creates a "Specific Beats General" scenario. But it never mentions any changes to the "Casting Spell" status.

Raishoiken

2021-03-08, 01:48 AM

As said, the rule is there for you to build a rule hierarchy when you use multiple rules to get the right outcome. Reducing the PSR to only if "your" interpretation causes dysfunction wouldn't work out well... Just imagine it, whenever someone's interpretation fails and causes a dysfunction he should rely on this rule? No, you use this rule to prevent such situation to occur at all. This is enforced by the fact that the PSR defines how you determine which rule is general and specific to each other as soon as you use 2 rules.

And if you really want a dysfunction, take the warlocks Imbue Item ability that stops to work under your interpretation. Now you have to apply the PSR even under your half-backed interpretation (to only use it when a dysfuntion appears..). This enforces you to take "Spells" and "Casting Spells" from the PHB as Primary Source. And guess the outcome.. Everything is now "Casting Spells" since it has become the general rule now.

You apply the Primary Source rule always when you use 2 rules. It's just that in most chases you don't notice it since no dysfunction occurs. As with my Power Attack example. As soon as you want to use Power Attack (specific) & the general "attack" rules, PSR is at duty. It is there to make sure that the Power Attack still counts as Attack and as such reacts accordingly to anything else that might target it as Attack.

So far you failed to acknowledge that the crafting rules target and alter the "Casting Spells"rule. As such, they can only change what they say that they change. And nowhere does it claim to stop counting as "Casting Spell" (same as with Power Attack not denying its "attack" status). I don't need to see a dysfunction to see that crafting makes use of "Casting Spell" rules since it describes the changes compared to "Casting Spell" and thus relies on it (like Power Attack relies on "Attack" rules). Show me where the crafting rules make a clear statement of denial about their status as "Casting Spells".

edit: here you have a disagreement caused by "crafting feats".
The crafting feats describe another way how you use "Spells". As such, it disagrees with the rule how you normally play out "Spells" accordingly to the PHB (the book that provides all rules to play the game). It disagrees with "Casting Spells" and creates a "Specific Beats General" scenario. But it never mentions any changes to the "Casting Spell" status.

You were very close towards the end there.

The crafting rules describe another way to use spells: yes

As such it disagrees with casting spells rules: false

The fact that it is describing a completely different way you're using spells, there is no disagreement.

Here's what you're saying unless im misinterpreting you please let me know:

"The players handbook tells you how to use spells, which is casting them. Since the dmg is describing another way to use spells, it counts as an altered way the spells are being cast"

This would be closer to true if the phb said that any thing like "if you're using spells in any way you're casting them". Just because the only way to use spells covered in the phb is casting them doesn't mean that every rule that includes spells involves casting them in some way

When the dmg guide introduces a completely different way to use spells, thats exactly what it is: a way to use spells that is not casting. Since the psr says "use the first rules if they disagree", and introducing a new way to use spells doesn't disagree with any other rules, just adds new rules the psr once again has nothing to do with this.
The way you're trying to use it is in a way that it doesnt talk about, which means you're making up an interpretation. All you have to do is point to anywhere that says the things that would prove you righr instead of trying to make connections that arent there we wouldnt be in this situation.

Trigger is not cast, if it was the game would tell us explicitly that it is casting, and it explicitly does tell us its not.

You're reaching way too far for some reason

Gruftzwerg

2021-03-09, 09:12 PM

You were very close towards the end there.

The crafting rules describe another way to use spells: yes

As such it disagrees with casting spells rules: false

The fact that it is describing a completely different way you're using spells, there is no disagreement.

Here's what you're saying unless im misinterpreting you please let me know:

"The players handbook tells you how to use spells, which is casting them. Since the dmg is describing another way to use spells, it counts as an altered way the spells are being cast"

This would be closer to true if the phb said that any thing like "if you're using spells in any way you're casting them". Just because the only way to use spells covered in the phb is casting them doesn't mean that every rule that includes spells involves casting them in some way

When the dmg guide introduces a completely different way to use spells, thats exactly what it is: a way to use spells that is not casting. Since the psr says "use the first rules if they disagree", and introducing a new way to use spells doesn't disagree with any other rules, just adds new rules the psr once again has nothing to do with this.
The way you're trying to use it is in a way that it doesnt talk about, which means you're making up an interpretation. All you have to do is point to anywhere that says the things that would prove you righr instead of trying to make connections that arent there we wouldnt be in this situation.

Trigger is not cast, if it was the game would tell us explicitly that it is casting, and it explicitly does tell us its not.

You're reaching way too far for some reason

You are still ignoring the Hierarchy that the PSR sets.
It is like ignoring International Human Rights with National Laws. It doesn't work unless you ignore the rule hierarchy. If a country/state makes laws for prisoners, they target and alter International Human Rights. They can't bypass em just by creating "prisoner laws". The hierarchy demands that they can't be ignored.

The entire PHB rules are Primary Sources. "Casting Spells" is also part of that. As such you have to follow it and can only create a niche with exceptional rules. Do you wanna imply that Power Attacks (or any other "Attack" modifying ability) stops to count as "Attack"? I guess not, since you did't answer me on that so far. So how are you still arguing that SLA, Spell Trigger and Crafting stop counting as "Casting Spells" without anything indicating otherwise.

The Primary Source Rule is part of the (altered) PHB (by the ERRATA). And that part tells you that everything has to obey the hierarchy set by it. Neither "Casting Spells" nor "Spells" or anything else needs to repeat that rule for you. (which is impossible since the PSR was added in the ERRATA later, but the important part here is, it doesn't need to. The PSR sets itself as the sole tool to decide the hierarchy and how specific exceptions can be made within this hierarchy.)

Raishoiken

2021-03-10, 11:47 AM

You are still ignoring the Hierarchy that the PSR sets.
It is like ignoring International Human Rights with National Laws. It doesn't work unless you ignore the rule hierarchy. If a country/state makes laws for prisoners, they target and alter International Human Rights. They can't bypass em just by creating "prisoner laws". The hierarchy demands that they can't be ignored.

The entire PHB rules are Primary Sources. "Casting Spells" is also part of that. As such you have to follow it and can only create a niche with exceptional rules. Do you wanna imply that Power Attacks (or any other "Attack" modifying ability) stops to count as "Attack"? I guess not, since you did't answer me on that so far. So how are you still arguing that SLA, Spell Trigger and Crafting stop counting as "Casting Spells" without anything indicating otherwise.

The Primary Source Rule is part of the (altered) PHB (by the ERRATA). And that part tells you that everything has to obey the hierarchy set by it. Neither "Casting Spells" nor "Spells" or anything else needs to repeat that rule for you. (which is impossible since the PSR was added in the ERRATA later, but the important part here is, it doesn't need to. The PSR sets itself as the sole tool to decide the hierarchy and how specific exceptions can be made within this hierarchy.)

Either you dont actually understand what im saying or you're ignoring it
Power attack is not even a close comparison. Because attacking is the only way you attack, but there are multiple ways to use a spell1

You are the one who says a rule is altering the casting spell rules if a rule includes spells, not the phb, or the psr.
I have shown you the full psr, and not a single sentence of it alludes to what you are saying so let me simplify it

The psr says explicitly that when there are "disagreements between to sources that mention a rule, the primary source for the rule takes precedent"

The only thing it mentions are disagreements between two rules. (Point to me where it says anything different)

The only way there is a disagreement between the phb and dmg on this matter is if you say: "the phb says that casting spells is the only way to use spells, and all other ways of using spells is casting them"

Which it doesnt. The Phb covers that primary material "spells", and one way to use them "casting them" which is the "specific after general" you're fishing for.

1: So the phb sets up a way you can use spells, which is casting but neither the phb or errata file mention anything about all other rules altering that, it only says that if another book mentions castig spells, that the phb rules on casting spells takes precedence. You're little rules hierarchy makes no sense because:

2: The dmg then calls out a second way to use spells that is wholly different from the first: using them during crafting. Seeing as how it mentions nothing about casting the spells, (which is the rule you think is being altered) the phb doesn't even need to be called into question about it because

3: crafting rules and casting rules are compeltely different rules. Both sets of rules utilize spells, but using different methods

Phb: says you can use spells bt casting them directly into the world
Dmg: says you can imbue items with the power of spells by crafting

Here are some points that have gone around:

1: Casting spells is a set of rules in the phb that describes how you cast spells (we agree on this).

2: crafting magic items is a set of rules in the dmg that tells you have to place spells in magic items

In the rules hierarchy: if you want to cast spells, refer to the phb on how to. If you want to place them into an item, refer to the dmg on how to

3: the psr says (and only says) if there is a disagreement on how to cast spells anywhere, the phb rules on how to cast spells takes precedence (i can re post the psr so you can read it again, since you've ignored my breakdown of it literally not saying anything close o what you are saying. If you show me in the psr where it says what you're saying i'll be fine. If you need me to show you where it agrees with me i will)

4: since it has been established that "casting spells" and "crafting items that have spells" do not disagree in any way due to the fact that casting a spell isnt brought up in the crafting rules, you do not have to double check the casting rules to make sure you're casting the spell correctly.
Because the crafting rules does one thing and doesnt do one other thing: it doesnt say you're casting( anywhere), and then goes on to say in multiple places thay you are not casting a spell

In short: psr says if a rule says you cast a spell, follow the casting a spell rules. If another book says casting a spell works different, its wrong. The dmg guide doesn't say you are casting a spell, so you aren't

You have to prove that you're casting a spell, which you cannot do because the rules do two things:
1: they do not say you are casting, so you can't aay you are (since there are no rules disagreements this is fine)
2: they say that what you are doing is not casting a spell through comparative language.

You have to show the secret line anywhere thay says the psr tells you the first way to use a thing is altered by every other way to use it. And you can't because the psr only says "if book A (phb)has a rule (casting) and book B (dmg) has the same rule , book A is right about the rule".

If book B has a completely different rules topic, then there is no issue

Stop trying to dance around the topic with analogies that dont fit

If the international human rights tell you what you can't do to prisoners, you dont have to refer to the international rights rules when determining what color outfits those prisoners have to wear because that has nothing to do with human rights.
Similarly, you dont habe to refer to the phb rules on crafting magic items because there are none there other than the feats that allow you to do so

Also to address one of your previous "points": no, rules aren't decided by majority, the rules are decided by the books. However, when the majority of people, and people who speak the language the rules were written in natively, tell you that you are reading the rules incorrectly (which has happened, just see all the other posts that tell you you're wrong that aren't mine), logic dictates that you are probably misinterpreting the rule

Is there a way you can address anything i said directly? Like quote it and then show me a rule that contradicts what i said, just like i've done to you? Or are you just going to repeat the same argument you've had in general? Cuz not addressing the points that literally show you that you're wrong and just saying the same thing over and over again has gotten you nowhere

tldr; the phb lays out the rules for casting spells, but doesn't say that whenever you use a spell that you're casting it. The very first line of the PSR spells out what it's purpose is
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources,
unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is
correct
The purpose very obviously is to clear up "disagreements" the word is in the text several times. The phb is the source for "all rules for playing the game", which includes "casting spells", and casting spells does not include all other uses of spells in it's umbrella

Show me in the text what i'm getting wrong here

Full PSR text straight from the PHB to help you find the line that says i'm wrong. If you simply point to the words that say i'm wrong then we'll be gucci. That'll be hard though since all of the words in this clearly point to what i've been trying to tell you Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources,
unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is
correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking
precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning of the
spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book
and topic precedence. 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. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster
descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spelllike abilities

EDIT: Wow i just keep finding ways these analogies are wrong. The Phb outlines the stats for daggers, and the rules for attacking with weapons. Does that mean that when you're using a dagger to do wood carving, you have to make attack roles against the wood you're carving? I mean it doesn't explicitly say in the crafting mundane items rules that you aren't attacking. Or what about when enchanting a sword? It doesn't say you're not attacking with the weapon, and the phb clearly lays out the rules for using weapons. This is the same line of reasoning you're using, almost exactly