New UA. what is up with wizards.

[kazaryu]

Ok so new UA is out and wizards are....interesting.

One thing i can say, while there are many things i may borrow from the 'new' PHB (like epic boons). i likely won't wholesale be switching any classes over. Features like alter spell/memorize spell are really cool. i love them from a flavor perspective, and from a creativity perspective. However, i think the problem with them is...pretty obvious.

specifically i think there are 3 aspects that have the potential to be incredibly problematic for high levels.

Components: Now, before create spell comes online, this one i think is almost certainly fine....although it should probably specify that you also can't remove the component for spells that require costly components...but many of those (maybe all now, to be fair) are covered by the clause about components that are consumed. However, when you get to the higher levels and a wizard is able to remove both V and S from pretty much any spell they want (at the cost of 2kgold per spell) I can definitely see this as being abusable. especially for spells that already have no M. I haven't gone through the list but...seriously, if DM's feel like they're struggling with high level play now...

Range: my problem with the range is how it scales. 30ft per wizard level is...insane. to a point. i mean, obviously this partially overlaps with the oddity of the mile range warlock...ya know eldritchs spear+spell sniper+distant spell. to some extent, a lot of that extra range is useless. however, that combo was limited to attack roll based spells...in other words, damage. whereas this isn't limited like that. Again, obviously i haven't seen an exhaustive list of every spell, but i find it tough to believe that every wizard spell will have been designed with this in mind.

Ritual: i...think it should be obvious why this one *might* be a problem (although good on them for adding the limitation that the spell needs to have a 10 minute casting time to be made a ritual, so you can't make create spell a ritual.) but still...i just....i can't imagine how this won't be a problem. every spell that has a casting time of >10 minutes will have already been decided whether its ok for it to be a ritual or not...and the ones that would be problematic as rituals...are already not rituals. either that or, in practice, there are no spells that qualify since all spells with >10 minute casting time are already rituals...idk. either way its worriesome.

So...i definitely think i'll borrow these mechanics, to allow players to make temporary alterations to spells. but i'd much rather keep them DM facing rather than having to metaphorically look over my players shoulders to make sure they don't do some really crazy **** with this. i mean, it is limited by gold, to an extent. but i like giving my players gold to see what they wanna do with it.so its not like thats much of a limitation.

i will also note, that modify spell doesn't specify that it needs to be a spell in your spellbook, meaning you may be able to affect arcane spells that you get from multiclassing, including other class exclusive spells, depending on how those all end up working.


as a closing disclaimer: im not saying that for sure 100% these are a problem. They just strike me as having the potential to be really problematic if added to the current edition, a step deeper into what makes wizards so strong. what do y'all think?

[Psyren]

I want to point out something a lot of people seem to have overlooked - the material cost for Create Spell isn't merely a bunch of gold each time, it's an Arcane Focus worth that much. You as the DM still have control over the availability of those expensive foci in the campaign, because they aren't listed items. Ergo, if you only want wizards at your table creating X spells (say, no more than 3) - or only perma-hacking spells 3rd-level and below, or some other restriction - you have the tools to limit how many of those they can find.

[Witty Username]

Hold up, they made a feature to remove components, and they didn't give it to sorcerer?
--
Mechanically its probably fine, components get handwaved alot of the time, and their are other limits on spells to be had. I find the it weird it is on wizard specifically, but that's a whole thing.

[Psyren]

Hold up, they made a feature to remove components, and they didn't give it to sorcerer?

Subtle Spell still exists, and in fact got buffed - you can Subtle spells with expensive components now (that aren't consumed by the spell.) So a 5R Sorcerer can get out, say, Summon Fey before another class might be able to afford it.

Essentially = Sorcerers modify their spells on the fly, Wizards do it in advance with more options.

[kazaryu]

I want to point out something a lot of people seem to have overlooked - the material cost for Create Spell isn't merely a bunch of gold each time, it's an Arcane Focus worth that much. You as the DM still have control over the availability of those expensive foci in the campaign, because they aren't listed items. Ergo, if you only want wizards at your table creating X spells (say, no more than 3) - or only perma-hacking spells 3rd-level and below, or some other restriction - you have the tools to limit how many of those they can find. oh. this is actually a good point. somewhat. the spell level altered by alter spell isn't limited, just the number of alterations. but i get your point. There's even the possibility of it being things like...i mean, you have a staff of striking, its worth like 4000 gold but if you wanna give it up for this..then sure?


OTOH, this also means that for the DM's that use random, or semi random loot tables, you can end up with the players having al kinds of wands to sacrifice for permanently upgraded spells.

but yes you do raise an important point. thank you fro pointing that out to me


Hold up, they made a feature to remove components, and they didn't give it to sorcerer?

sorcerers already have subtle spell metamagic. it only costs 1 sorcery point and can be used on any spell on a whim. so...no its not permanent. but it comes on way earlier and is far, far cheaper.

[Psyren]

oh. this is actually a good point. somewhat. the spell level altered by alter spell isn't limited, just the number of alterations. but i get your point. There's even the possibility of it being things like...i mean, you have a staff of striking, its worth like 4000 gold but if you wanna give it up for this..then sure?


OTOH, this also means that for the DM's that use random, or semi random loot tables, you can end up with the players having al kinds of wands to sacrifice for permanently upgraded spells.

but yes you do raise an important point. thank you fro pointing that out to me

I don't even know if they'll be in random loot tables honestly. Finding an aged ivory staff or whatever that's worth 4k sounds like a hook to me.

Also - while the alterations are only limited by the spell level you cast Modify Spell at, once you've Created something it stops being an Arcane spell and can never be modified again, which is also going to naturally control how often Wizards go all out with this.

[kazaryu]

I don't even know if they'll be in random loot tables honestly. Finding an aged ivory staff or whatever that's worth 4k sounds like a hook to me.

Also - while the alterations are only limited by the spell level you cast Modify Spell at, once you've Created something it stops being an Arcane spell and can never be modified again, which is also going to naturally control how often Wizards go all out with this.

to some degree yes, but with a single upcast of modify you can apply all the changes you want.

so while you're right that you can't modify a spell you've already modified (which is, in fairness, something i'd overlooked as well) in practice all that means is that you're limited by what wizard level you can modify certain spells in certain ways. (i.e. you need to be lvl 9 to permanently remove the v,s, components from a spell). but idk how much of a difference that makes.

as far as the focuses...as i pointed out, i believe that any of the magical staffs, wands, rods, crystal balls would all work. it doesn't need to be a super fancy staff (or wand or rod) made out of fancy material. it just needs to be an arcane focus.

roll on the random table and you get a wand of magic missile? as long as its worth 1k gold it'd work. (idk how much you'd price such a wand. just saying).

[Psyren]

to some degree yes, but with a single upcast of modify you can apply all the changes you want.

so while you're right that you can't modify a spell you've already modified (which is, in fairness, something i'd overlooked as well) in practice all that means is that you're limited by what wizard level you can modify certain spells in certain ways. (i.e. you need to be lvl 9 to permanently remove the v,s, components from a spell). but idk how much of a difference that makes.

as far as the focuses...as i pointed out, i believe that any of the magical staffs, wands, rods, crystal balls would all work. it doesn't need to be a super fancy staff (or wand or rod) made out of fancy material. it just needs to be an arcane focus.

roll on the random table and you get a wand of magic missile? as long as its worth 1k gold it'd work. (idk how much you'd price such a wand. just saying).

1) As long as only the DM can determine when you find a "fancy focus" (magical or nonmagical) then that's all that really matters.

2) "You only get one bite of the apple" is a powerful limiter. Even when a wizard CAN permanently modify a spell in a desirable way, they'll still be encouraged to hold off until they can apply the exact modifications they want.

[Hael]

I want to point out something a lot of people seem to have overlooked - the material cost for Create Spell isn't merely a bunch of gold each time, it's an Arcane Focus worth that much. You as the DM still have control over the availability of those expensive foci in the campaign, because they aren't listed items. Ergo, if you only want wizards at your table creating X spells (say, no more than 3) - or only perma-hacking spells 3rd-level and below, or some other restriction - you have the tools to limit how many of those they can find.

In 5e, you could probably use fabricate to create more. Arcane Focus’s aren’t magic items, they are ‘special’ items and so could be created by a wizard with the right proficiency and gold value of material. I wasn’t able to find a relevant definition in 1DnD.

But you are right that the cost will be significantly prohibitive until tier3 (where it becomes relatively pedestrian).

Still, it will be worth it for ritual cast contingency at some stage….

Overall, I really like what they did with wizards (other than the power bloat). These new spells actually make things a little interesting and rewards judicious play.

[Psyren]

Fabricate could certainly help, assuming they don't change it, but even if they don't - the raw materials for an expensive arcane focus are still up to the DM to determine. Like if the only way to make a 4000 gold wand is with aged ivory and a unicorn hair, you're not making one without getting your hands on that stuff. Again, such items don't exist in 5e, so it will all depend on whether they stat them out officially, and even if they do, the DM can still control their availability.

[kazaryu]

1) As long as only the DM can determine when you find a "fancy focus" (magical or nonmagical) then that's all that really matters. sure, but rolling for loot hampers that. im not really specifically looking at my table. im talking about across the community. some tables enjoy random loot. all these new spells seem to do is increase the power that wizards already have at high levels (at least for tables where thats a problem).



2) "You only get one bite of the apple" is a powerful limiter. Even when a wizard CAN permanently modify a spell in a desirable way, they'll still be encouraged to hold off until they can apply the exact modifications they want. right but they don't only get one bit of the apple. the old spell isn't removed. they can alter it again later. so yes, to an extent there's a bit of an extra cost to doing it. but its not as potent as 'onces you've done it, you can never do it again'.

overall, as this discussion unfolds, im realizing that im less worried about alter spell than i am create spell.

like alter spell is potent, for sure. but its still just one spell at a time. its abuse able, but not to the same extent as when you remove that limitation. I think another one of my concerns is more of a pet peeve. im worried about how much it'll dominate future conversations in this space. much like things like shapechange and magic jar do now. you'll be trying to have some discussion and then out of no where one of those 2 spells will come up and it'll be like 'sure but if the wizard magic jars into jar-jar binx, now suddenly they're a cr30 sith and **** the rest of your campaign'.

i can see a similar situation happening here where you get people talking about 'yeah but what if the wizard rituals casts Gygax' corrupted legacy from 600 feet away without using any components or a spell slot!'.

so that may be a bit unfair of me, as it doesn't actually relate to the practical applications of the features.

[Psyren]

I truly don't think rolling for loot hampers it at all. There are no loot tables that contain hyper-expensive mundane arcane foci, at least not that I know of. There are magic items, sure, but burning up a magic item to make a spell is a perfectly fine trade.

By "one bite of the apple" I meant "if you burn your staff of striking to Create Psyren's Unimpeachable Counterspell, that's fine, but you have no real way of knowing when you'll get another." And random loot compounds that, because the next three or five or even ten magic items the party finds might not be staves or wands at all. What that means is that Psyren, even when he can make that, might want to wait until he has a second magic staff or wand or crystal ball etc before burning the first.

[kazaryu]

I truly don't think rolling for loot hampers it at all. There are no loot tables that contain hyper-expensive mundane arcane foci, at least not that I know of. There are magic items, sure, but burning up a magic item to make a spell is a perfectly fine trade. im not sure thats true. unfortunately, the game tends to make the assumption that an items cost is proportional to its relative utility to the party. but in practice...thats really not true. think like...a +1 rapier to a great weapon based fighter. they *might* keep it on hand just in case they happen to need it. but one of the more common things that i've heard coming from random loot tables is...exactly what i've described. you get cool shiny toys...except they don't really match anyone, so they end up getting sold for gold.

Now, it is true that gold sometimes can be traded for permanent chracter buffs (i.e. magic items) similar to spells. the difference is, imo, the things changed by the 'alter spell' spell, are often meant ot be limiters on a spell, to keep it fair. whereas magic items are often designed to be fair, as they are. its kinda the point.



By "one bite of the apple" I meant "if you burn your staff of striking to Create Psyren's Unimpeachable Counterspell, that's fine, but you have no real way of knowing when you'll get another." And random loot compounds that, because the next three or five or even ten magic items the party finds might not be staves or wands at all. What that means is that Psyren, even when he can make that, might want to wait until he has a second magic staff or wand or crystal ball etc before burning the first. eh, i think you underestimate how often people play with magical items. random loot is one thing, but even magic item shops aren't uncommon. idk. i agree with you that if the DM is deliberately curating things, he can keep the spell in check. I just don't think that that is a terribly fair standard to apply across the board. again, many tables...just don't do that. they like having magic items abounding. and being able to alter spells in the way it currently works, using those magic items, can disproportionately affect PC power level

[GeneralVryth]

Of course the other half of this create spell discussion is what if the DM never gives out the necessary component? It basically becomes a dead feature. Which considering it and modify are the main base class features of mid-level Wizards that would suck.

It's worth asking if the cost should be removed and instead a limit of 3 to 5 (based on Wizard level, or Int mod, or maybe Prof bonus) be enforced for created spells. Or if you like the narrative aspect similar to scribing scrolls, then maybe the first X are free (like gaining spells on level up) and more cost gold.

Of course this all requires modify/create being sufficiently balanced in the first place (which is probably a good thing to aim for anyways to avoid wrecking games where it can be widely used).

Maybe it's worth looking at the extreme scenario and asking whether it should only be gold (expensive arcane foci) limited at all. You essentially end up with a even an 11th level Wizard being able to make every spell of theirs component-less (except for expensive ones), 2x+ range, only effects friend/foes, or damage immune concentration. Not to mention making any spell with a casting of 10+ minutes a ritual and this no longer costing a spell slot (why would you ever cast them non-ritually).

Even as someone that leans the way of the wizard the above sounds very extreme.

Perhaps they should re-purpose the concept into a different form of signature spells. Basically a limited number of spells the Wizard has studied so in-depth they have modified how they work to better suit their needs. Then just rename the 18th level feature (or just replace it with a gold based option to make any spell a signature spell at a gold cost like current Create works).

[Psyren]

im not sure thats true. unfortunately, the game tends to make the assumption that an items cost is proportional to its relative utility to the party. but in practice...thats really not true. think like...a +1 rapier to a great weapon based fighter. they *might* keep it on hand just in case they happen to need it. but one of the more common things that i've heard coming from random loot tables is...exactly what i've described. you get cool shiny toys...except they don't really match anyone, so they end up getting sold for gold.

Now, it is true that gold sometimes can be traded for permanent chracter buffs (i.e. magic items) similar to spells. the difference is, imo, the things changed by the 'alter spell' spell, are often meant ot be limiters on a spell, to keep it fair. whereas magic items are often designed to be fair, as they are. its kinda the point.

eh, i think you underestimate how often people play with magical items. random loot is one thing, but even magic item shops aren't uncommon. idk. i agree with you that if the DM is deliberately curating things, he can keep the spell in check. I just don't think that that is a terribly fair standard to apply across the board. again, many tables...just don't do that. they like having magic items abounding. and being able to alter spells in the way it currently works, using those magic items, can disproportionately affect PC power level

If your DM is making Magic-Mart available then yes, the wizard could buy a lot of wands etc to turn into customized spells... but the DM kind of gives up the right to complain about something they're actively enabling, don't they?


Of course the other half of this create spell discussion is what if the DM never gives out the necessary component? It basically becomes a dead feature. Which considering it and modify are the main base class features of mid-level Wizards that would suck.

It's worth asking if the cost should be removed and instead a limit of 3 to 5 (based on Wizard level, or Int mod, or maybe Prof bonus) be enforced for created spells. Or if you like the narrative aspect similar to scribing scrolls, then maybe the first X are free (like gaining spells on level up) and more cost gold.

Of course this all requires modify/create being sufficiently balanced in the first place (which is probably a good thing to aim for anyways to avoid wrecking games where it can be widely used).

Maybe it's worth looking at the extreme scenario and asking whether it should only be gold (expensive arcane foci) limited at all. You essentially end up with a even an 11th level Wizard being able to make every spell of theirs component-less (except for expensive ones), 2x+ range, only effects friend/foes, or damage immune concentration. Not to mention making any spell with a casting of 10+ minutes a ritual and this no longer costing a spell slot (why would you ever cast them non-ritually).

Even as someone that leans the way of the wizard the above sounds very extreme.

Perhaps they should re-purpose the concept into a different form of signature spells. Basically a limited number of spells the Wizard has studied so in-depth they have modified how they work to better suit their needs. Then just rename the 18th level feature (or just replace it with a gold based option to make any spell a signature spell at a gold cost like current Create works).

Even if a DM never provides the component that lets this work... well, you're still a wizard, i.e. the best caster with the best list in the game. And you can even still Modify a spell without permanently recording it. This is all upside imo.

[GeneralVryth]

Even if a DM never provides the component that lets this work... well, you're still a wizard, i.e. the best caster with the best list in the game. And you can even still Modify a spell without permanently recording it. This is all upside imo.

I am not sure, this is something I definitely see both sides on. I guess the core idea that comes to mind is how many other classes have features (other than language ribbons) that require explicit DM support to use?

[Psyren]

I am not sure, this is something I definitely see both sides on. I guess the core idea that comes to mind is how many other classes have features (other than language ribbons) that require explicit DM support to use?

How many other classes can create custom spells?

[GeneralVryth]

How many other classes can create custom spells?

Well most of the effects are available to Sorcerers as metamagic. So in play, at least 1. But the larger point was a legitimate question wondering about how many other classes have a real feature dependent on DM fiat. I guess there is the Cleric Divine Intervention (because it's so open ended), but it can still be attempted without DM intervention. Artificers can make their own magic items so there is still some value to their attunement bonuses.

[Razade]

I want to point out something a lot of people seem to have overlooked - the material cost for Create Spell isn't merely a bunch of gold each time, it's an Arcane Focus worth that much. You as the DM still have control over the availability of those expensive foci in the campaign, because they aren't listed items. Ergo, if you only want wizards at your table creating X spells (say, no more than 3) - or only perma-hacking spells 3rd-level and below, or some other restriction - you have the tools to limit how many of those they can find.

Any mechanic that relies solely on DM fiat is not a well built or balanced mechanic.

[Kane0]

How many other classes can create custom spells?

Well there are the guidelines in the DMG

[Unoriginal]

Having written mechanics in the PHB for PCs to modify or create new spells? There's an argument to have them. Making those mechanics two spells is clumsy and doesn't mesh with any existing rule or concept.

It's like they heard people say that the Wizard didn't have room for more class features because of their spellcasting and they thought "they're right, we need to make their new class features spells".

To me Create Spell should be a downtime activity similar to the Xanathar's version of magic item crafting, with a quest requirement.

[Rafaelfras]

Well, you can put that line of thinking to all spells with expensive material components.
How wizards have been casting any spell that requires then until now? Are all of them DM fiat? The answer is no. All of these have been casting just fine (as long as there is gold to it) and so will be create spell.
In a normal play you will have access to the gold to ask for an artisan to build it for you, to make it yourself with fabricate or to burn a magical item on it. A DM going out of their way to prevent this is an exception not a rule and this can be applied to anything so in my opinion is not relevant.
What is relevant is that the spell is very expensive in every regard: it has a long cast time, a costly component and consume 3 spell slots (5, 4 and 1) to change a single spell. This is a lot. To the point no wizard will try it during an adventure even if he have a day to spare which most of the time they don't.
If in his downtime the wizard has access to this much time and that much money to allter all his spells, it seems like you are giving too much time or too much gold or both to your players.
So let's go with what will be the most common. The wizard will alter some of his spells before the gold runs out.

[Unoriginal]

Are all of them DM fiat? The answer is no.

That's arguable. Everything is DM fiat in the end, aside from the player's willingness to play at that table.


To the point no wizard will try it during an adventure even if he have a day to spare which most of the time they don't.

I can bet a ton of white room theorycrafters will disagree with that.

There's going to be a big wave of "Schrodinger's Wizard, but with actually unlimited power", if those spells make it into the game.

[Rafaelfras]

That's arguable. Everything is DM fiat in the end, aside from the player's willingness to play at that table.



I can bet a ton of white room theorycrafters will disagree with that.

There's going to be a big wave of "Schrodinger's Wizard, but with actually unlimited power", if those spells make it into the game.

I agree with both points.
It will be simulacra armies with all component-less spells that hit a mile away, only your foes, with infinite ritual-contingency-glyphs of protection

[SpikeFightwicky]

On the subject of comparisons of DM fiat vs magic items, isn't it slightly different when it's a class ability? I get that magic items are an optional rule, but this seems like a session 0 conversation if you do it that way ->
"Anyone who wants to be a wizard, keep in mind I won't let you get more than 2 uses of your 9th level class ability because it's too exploitable otherwise."
Having to have that conversation about a core PHB class mechanic feels like a fail in game design. It's possible / likely I'm missing some other limiter? Otherwise you'll have a frustrated wizard who never gets to use their class ability because the DM removes the ability to get the spell component.

[Rafaelfras]

On the subject of comparisons of DM fiat vs magic items, isn't it slightly different when it's a class ability? I get that magic items are an optional rule, but this seems like a session 0 conversation if you do it that way ->
"Anyone who wants to be a wizard, keep in mind I won't let you get more than 2 uses of your 9th level class ability because it's too exploitable otherwise."
Having to have that conversation about a core PHB class mechanic feels like a fail in game design. It's possible / likely I'm missing some other limiter? Otherwise you'll have a frustrated wizard who never gets to use their class ability because the DM removes the ability to get the spell component.

My point is that I don't think this will be a thing, because it's not a thing with any other spell with pricy components. Most DMs will just say " ok pay x amount of gold to pay for the spell component" and most wizards will use it to change fireball to necrotic damage because it fits better their necromancer. And DMs trying to bar access to a spell component probably have been doing that for other spells too

[SpikeFightwicky]

My point is that I don't think this will be a thing, because it's not a thing with any other spell with pricy components. Most DMs will just say " ok pay x amount of gold to pay for the spell component" and most wizards will use it to change fireball to necrotic damage because it fits better their necromancer. And DMs trying to bar access to a spell component probably have been doing that for other spells too

I don't disagree - that's likely what will happen. Though this is something in the core rules that every wizard will have and expect to be able to do, as it's technically a class feature in addition to being a spell, so it might set player expectations - like if you limit artificers to 2 infusions in your game that's a conversation you need to have before the player decides to make one.

Also... I'm no theorycrafter, but is Create Spell so crazy that it'll require arbitration? <- (honest question) Considering this is a playtest, now's the time to let them know if it's problematic. I imagine that even high magic item games still have limits on how much gold is available to the party.

[Rafaelfras]

I don't disagree - that's likely what will happen. Though this is something in the core rules that every wizard will have and expect to be able to do, as it's technically a class feature in addition to being a spell, so it might set player expectations - like if you limit artificers to 2 infusions in your game that's a conversation you need to have before the player decides to make one.

Also... I'm no theorycrafter, but is Create Spell so crazy that it'll require arbitration? <- (honest question) Considering this is a playtest, now's the time to let them know if it's problematic. I imagine that even high magic item games still have limits on how much gold is available to the party.

I agree, every class is entitled do what their features allow them to.

I am no theorycrafter either, in MY opinion, both as DM and wizard player (currently at lvl 17) I don't think it's crazy, I know it would rapidly drain my resources if I try to use it in all my spells

[Boverk]

Also... I'm no theorycrafter, but is Create Spell so crazy that it'll require arbitration? <- (honest question) Considering this is a playtest, now's the time to let them know if it's problematic. I imagine that even high magic item games still have limits on how much gold is available to the party.

I've been thinking of how I'd use the modify spell

Color, Sound, and Smell are free - My fireball is now purple, smells like lavender, and makes a sound like a foghorn
Components - (selectively) mute wizards are feasible now..though you need to modify modify spell first? Can you only remove one component? or can you choose to remove multiple components if you cast a higher level spell? i.e. if I cast modify spell at level 6 to remove the verbal, somatic, and material components of a spell?
Concentration - might be interesting for bladesingers if they make it in...modify tenser's transformation might have been interesting for this if it had made the cut (it's not on the arcane spell list)
Damage Types - great for themed casters and those who've taken the elemental adept feat
Range - great for snipers?
Ritual - Probably will see this used on things that make long rests safer/more comfortable....most of the spells with longer cast times would be done during down time, so its typically ok to use spell slots for them
Targets - great for the fireball happy wizards "I cast fireball at my feet" "Are you sure, we're in a small room?"
A level 17+ wizard could make 6 modifications: Remove all the 3 components, change the damage type, increase the range, and make it only hit enemies


You could make a cool Twinrova (from OoT) character that specializes in fire and cold spells? Meteor Swarm would do Fire and Cold instead of Fire and Physical, You could have both fire ball and ice ball, etc.

Also, if tempest cleric makes it in, a Wizard/tempest cleric multiclass could do lots of max damage shenanigans


And how much can you change the spell's sounds? My lightning bolt now makes a sound like someone yelling "Thunderstruck!" My expeditious retreat now plays the Benny Hill theme.

[Damon_Tor]

1) As long as only the DM can determine when you find a "fancy focus" (magical or nonmagical) then that's all that really matters.

Problem: Spellbooks are themselves arcane foci now. Ones with explicit values based on the spells contained, and which the wizard can create himself. And published adventures tend to drop these things all over the place: almost any NPC who is supposed to be a wizard comes with a spellbook containing all the spells listed in their statblock (and why wouldn't they?)

A DM will have to warp the plot just to keep the wizard from getting too strong, replacing wizard NPCs with other types of spellcasters even if that wasn't their vision.

[Psyren]

Well most of the effects are available to Sorcerers as metamagic. So in play, at least 1.

No, Sorcerers modify their spells on the fly and must pay every time they do so. They're not creating anything.


But the larger point was a legitimate question wondering about how many other classes have a real feature dependent on DM fiat. I guess there is the Cleric Divine Intervention (because it's so open ended), but it can still be attempted without DM
intervention. Artificers can make their own magic items so there is still some value to their attunement bonuses.


Any mechanic that relies solely on DM fiat is not a well built or balanced mechanic.

First, the word you're looking for is adjudication, not fiat. DM fiat means the DM is going outside the rules entirely to achieve the result they want, while adjudication is the DM exercising their authority over the world to determine how accessible something that's part of an existing rule is.

And yes, the Artificer's Replicate Magic Item is a solid example of adjudication, because the "type of object that can receive an infusion" is not always specified in the magic items entry. Sending Stones for example require "smooth stones carved to match the other." Some DMs handwave that as long as there are stones around, some might require you to carve a pair yourself using a skill check and keep them on your person before you can infuse them, and some might make carved stones available in a shop somewhere. Spellwrought Tattoo needs "a special needle" - some DMs will say any needle is fine, others might need you to find or craft a suitable one and then keep it safe if you want to keep infusing it. None of these are wrong or outside the rules, hence adjudication.


I agree with both points.
It will be simulacra armies with all component-less spells that hit a mile away, only your foes, with infinite ritual-contingency-glyphs of protection

1) The problem with simulacrum is simulacrum, not these spells. That is what needs to be altered.
2) Contingency being a ritual does not remove the clause that casting it a second time will remove the first.



I'm not saying these spells are perfect as is. Personally I think upcasting Modify Spell should increase the spell level of the end product once Created. (Sure this won't matter for creating rituals, but those are largely already balanced by their casting time limitation.) But I'm directionally fine with wizards being able to modify spells, even permanently, with the DM's help.

The one I think people are actually sleeping on is Memorize Spell, which basically makes it so a Wizard's preparations in the morning don't matter if they have 11 minutes to spare. This should be a 1/day (or maybe Int/day) feature, not a spammable spell.

[Unoriginal]

The one I think people are actually sleeping on is Memorize Spell, which basically makes it so a Wizard's preparations in the morning don't matter if they have 11 minutes to spare. This should be a 1/day (or maybe Int/day) feature, not a spammable spell.

IMO maybe it could work as a subclass feature, but not as something that is available for every Wizard.

[Hurrashane]

Problem: Spellbooks are themselves arcane foci now. Ones with explicit values based on the spells contained, and which the wizard can create himself. And published adventures tend to drop these things all over the place: almost any NPC who is supposed to be a wizard comes with a spellbook containing all the spells listed in their statblock (and why wouldn't they?)

A DM will have to warp the plot just to keep the wizard from getting too strong, replacing wizard NPCs with other types of spellcasters even if that wasn't their vision.


"You can use an Arcane
Focus or your spellbook as a Spellcasting Focus
for the spells you cast with your Wizard features."

By RAW it seems that only your spellbook is an arcane focus, no wait it's a "spellcasting focus" so a spell book isn't even an arcane focus.

[Damon_Tor]

"You can use an Arcane
Focus or your spellbook as a Spellcasting Focus
for the spells you cast with your Wizard features."

By RAW it seems that only your spellbook is an arcane focus, no wait it's a "spellcasting focus" so a spell book isn't even an arcane focus.

But you can use it as an arcane focus for spells you cast with your wizard features... which would include create spell.

[Hurrashane]

But you can use it as an arcane focus for spells you cast with your wizard features... which would include create spell.

Yeah, but if you use it as the material component for create spell your spell book will be consumed by the spell.

[MrStabby]

Not really a great fan of this. Its yet another ability in the camp of "Well the DM can control it if they really want to". It means the game goes from supporting a huge variety of playstyles to effectively mandating exactly one.

Low magic items denies use of abilities, high magic supercarges them, random loot could do whatever, depending on what gets rolled. Yeah, this isn't entirely new (for example if you want to balance the monk then a zero magic item game is the way to go) but it seems to be a bit of a bad design.

If you have exactly the right amount of magic at the right time to make this balanced, it seems a really flavourful ability though.

[Sigreid]

Bit surprised there isn't more kerfuffle over a wizard potentially, over time being able to modify all their AOE damage spells so they not only have greater range, but will not harm your allies.

[Damon_Tor]

Yeah, but if you use it as the material component for create spell your spell book will be consumed by the spell.

But like I said, Spellbooks are very common in published adventures, and every NPC wizard should have one. So the DM has to either change his story (IE, replace wizards the party will face with other types of spellcasters even if that's not what he would have wanted for his story) just to keep the wizard from being too strong.

What's more, the DM has to keep a tight lid on all the materials a wizard could use to make a new spellbook, which are also the things the wizards needs just to function normally.

A mechanic the DM has to tiptoe around like this to avoid a PC becoming broken is probably not okay.

[Rafaelfras]

1) The problem with simulacrum is simulacrum, not these spells. That is what needs to be altered.
2) Contingency being a ritual does not remove the clause that casting it a second time will remove the first.

I am joking, as white rooms Shrodinger wizards tend to exaggerate what you really can do



The one I think people are actually sleeping on is Memorize Spell, which basically makes it so a Wizard's preparations in the morning don't matter if they have 11 minutes to spare. This should be a 1/day (or maybe Int/day) feature, not a spammable spell.

Well it's 1 spell at a time, so I don't think it's that much. You have to do the ritual, cast the changed spell (or don't but then you just wasted time) cast the ritual again rinse and repeat.
It's very useful sure. Given time you will get the spell that you need. But you don't always have the time. I think it will bring more niche spells into use or avoid the situation where you have nothing useful for a whole adventuring day.
But with that said it will certainly contribute to "the wizard always have the right spell for the job"

[Sigreid]

1) The problem with simulacrum is simulacrum, not these spells. That is what needs to be altered.


Simulacrum can be easily fixed. Two easy ways would be 1. Make it like the original 1e version where the simulacrum has 30-60% of the strength and knowledge of the original or 2) Change it so only one simulacrum of a given target can exist at one time or 3) Both.

Or you can just look at your wizard out to create an Army of Me and say "Don't be a @#$%".

[JNAProductions]

Simulacrum can be easily fixed. Two easy ways would be 1. Make it like the original 1e version where the simulacrum has 30-60% of the strength and knowledge of the original or 2) Change it so only one simulacrum of a given target can exist at one time or 3) Both.

Or you can just look at your wizard out to create an Army of Me and say "Don't be a @#$%".

Simulacrum shouldn't be a spell you can just learn.
Even if made considerably weaker, it's an incredibly effective body for how cheap it is.

It'd make more sense if Simulacrum was more like a magic item-something you can only get in limited amounts, requiring a quest or exorbitant amount of money to get, possibly both. NOT something you can just... Make with a day of downtime and some moderately expensive reagants.

[Hurrashane]

But like I said, Spellbooks are very common in published adventures, and every NPC wizard should have one. So the DM has to either change his story (IE, replace wizards the party will face with other types of spellcasters even if that's not what he would have wanted for his story) just to keep the wizard from being too strong.

What's more, the DM has to keep a tight lid on all the materials a wizard could use to make a new spellbook, which are also the things the wizards needs just to function normally.

A mechanic the DM has to tiptoe around like this to avoid a PC becoming broken is probably not okay.

But only -your- spellbook counts as a spellcasting focus. As in the one you get from the class or ones you make by casting scribe scroll on a blank book. You can't use just any spellbook as a focus. So if you want to create spell with a spellbook the material component it has to be yours.

[jas61292]

The one I think people are actually sleeping on is Memorize Spell, which basically makes it so a Wizard's preparations in the morning don't matter if they have 11 minutes to spare. This should be a 1/day (or maybe Int/day) feature, not a spammable spell.

This is what I have been focused on. Frankly, it worries me far more than any Create Spell shenanigans.

Even though its not as true as it was in past editions, the theoretical Wizard identity has always been about needing to predict ahead of time what you need. If you predict right, you reap great rewards. If you do not, you have some issues. This spell makes it so that wizards don't need to do any of that. In fact, they are the ones who need to prep the least, which is just directly against theme.

[MisterD]

Remove Modify, Create and Scribe spells and create a Spell Crafting system for the DMG.
Modifying a spell is and should remain Sorcerer ability. Meta magic is Sorcerer identifying feature.

Removing ability to interrupt concentration on a spell and making an area of effect spell auto not harm ANY party members is just Broken and taking away from Sorcerer who can make an AoE spells safe but for only CHA mod number of friends. or give Advantage to but not remove the need for Con saves to maintain concentration.

[MisterD]

This is what I have been focused on. Frankly, it worries me far more than any Create Spell shenanigans.

Even though its not as true as it was in past editions, the theoretical Wizard identity has always been about needing to predict ahead of time what you need. If you predict right, you reap great rewards. If you do not, you have some issues. This spell makes it so that wizards don't need to do any of that. In fact, they are the ones who need to prep the least, which is just directly against theme.

You want to change a spell mid-day. OK spent half an hour per spell level Clearing it from you mind and one hour per level to learning a new one.

[Psyren]

Remove Modify, Create and Scribe spells and create a Spell Crafting system for the DMG.
Modifying a spell is and should remain Sorcerer ability. Meta magic is Sorcerer identifying feature.

Removing ability to interrupt concentration on a spell and making an area of effect spell auto not harm ANY party members is just Broken and taking away from Sorcerer who can make an AoE spells safe but for only CHA mod number of friends. or give Advantage to but not remove the need for Con saves to maintain concentration.

Con saves are still valuable even with this. Concentration can still be interrupted via the Incapacitated condition (and by extension, the Stunned/Unconscious/Paralyzed/Petrified conditions), and a lot of those are Con saves.

[Rukelnikov]

Remove Modify, Create and Scribe spells and create a Spell Crafting system for the DMG.
Modifying a spell is and should remain Sorcerer ability. Meta magic is Sorcerer identifying feature.

Removing ability to interrupt concentration on a spell and making an area of effect spell auto not harm ANY party members is just Broken and taking away from Sorcerer who can make an AoE spells safe but for only CHA mod number of friends. or give Advantage to but not remove the need for Con saves to maintain concentration.

Metamagic is the Sorcerer thing since 5e, Wizards were applying metamagics to their spells before Sorcerers even existed as a class.

[Kane0]

Metamagic is the Sorcerer thing since 5e, Wizards were applying metamagics to their spells before Sorcerers even existed as a class.

So give sorcerers something else, like spell points.

[Rukelnikov]

So give sorcerers something else, like spell points.

I'm all in for that, actually its how I handle Sorcerers currently. And I think making the distinction of allowing Sorcerers to apply Metamagics on the fly and Wizards needing to prepare them beforehand is a nice callback to the introduction of Sorcerers in 3e. If only we could go back to at will casting Warlocks...

[Theodoxus]

I'm not seeing the issue with Memorize Spell. It's swapping one prepared spell for another. So, what, you wake up in the morning, preparing Fireball and Flaming Sphere. Through the morning, your rogue announces that the temple you're going to be raiding has been taken over by fire elementals. So, you ask the party to take a short rest, letting your Monk and Fighter refresh their SR abilities and you swap out Fireball for Lightning Bolt. Yay!, you have Lightning Bolt for the day instead.

If you cast Memorize Spell again, to swap out Flaming Sphere for Cloud of Daggers, your Fireball pops back into your mind.

Seems fair.

[Hytheter]

Subtle Spell still exists, and in fact got buffed - you can Subtle spells with expensive components now (that aren't consumed by the spell.)

Wait, wait... Holy crap, that's surprising. My gut says it might be an oversight, but I hope to be proven wrong.

[Razade]

First, the word you're looking for is adjudication, not fiat. DM fiat means the DM is going outside the rules entirely to achieve the result they want, while adjudication is the DM exercising their authority over the world to determine how accessible something that's part of an existing rule is.

No. The word I was looking for wasn't adjudication. It was fiat. I used the word I meant to use. I'm not really interested in debating how words are used with you either. You knew what I meant well enough to try and correct me. I'm using fiat as in an authoritative or arbitrary order, a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort. You don't need to condescend down to me as if I don't know what I actually meant to use just because you're using the term fiat differently.


And yes, the Artificer's Replicate Magic Item is a solid example of adjudication, because the "type of object that can receive an infusion" is not always specified in the magic items entry. Sending Stones for example require "smooth stones carved to match the other." Some DMs handwave that as long as there are stones around, some might require you to carve a pair yourself using a skill check and keep them on your person before you can infuse them, and some might make carved stones available in a shop somewhere. Spellwrought Tattoo needs "a special needle" - some DMs will say any needle is fine, others might need you to find or craft a suitable one and then keep it safe if you want to keep infusing it. None of these are wrong or outside the rules, hence adjudication.

Yeah, this just looks like more poor design to me, all it does is allow GMs to be arbitrary PITAs if they so choose. A mechanic that hinges solely on DM fiat isn't made better just because some DMs aren't jerks at the table. If your mechanics require the table to behave as you expect them to behave then you've got a bad mechanic, full stop. Anything that requires the table to arbitrate and argue over the precise meaning of a mechanic is also a bad mechanic, all it does is create semantic arguments just like trying to word police over arbitration or fiat is a waste of time. You can create clear, evocative, rules without simply going "and the GM gets to make the final call of what special is."

[JNAProductions]

Assuming a healthy table is fine to do.
No amount of rules can make a toxic table good.

[Kane0]

If you want to test-run the alter/create spell thing, there's the MacGuyver thread in RP section thats active at the moment

[GeneralVryth]

As a general rule non-ribbon features that require DM support to use at all, are not good features. That's my concern with Create Spell, beyond that fact that if you can use it without restriction (unlimited valuable foci) it also becomes quite rediculous. Those 2 facts together suggest that a Wizard should probably be allowed to have a limited number of created spells at a time, and they should probably be free or only be effectively a gold cost.

This also helps keep it separate from Metamagic which is allows customizing any spell that can be cast on the fly instead of doing prep work.

As for memorize, I wouldn't be super concerned about. The Wizard is still constrained by the spells in their spellbook, and already are the only LR prepared spellcaster that can't just choose any spell from its list to prepare (Druids and Clerics being the others). And changing the prepared spells requires either time or a spell slot which fit with the preparation theme.

[Razade]

Assuming a healthy table is fine to do.
No amount of rules can make a toxic table good.

Writing without assuming it still nets you better written mechanics than writing on assuming that the table will interpret or rule the way you intended to write the mechanic. Writing to cut down on RAW/RAI discussion is objectively better writing than the alternative and just assuming the majority of people will get what you meant. We have 15+ years of this very website alone to show for that, and it goes for every system. Don't write assuming the players will know what you mean. Explain what you mean or give details as to how you intended things to be implemented.

[JNAProductions]

Sure, write with clarity.

But I don’t think an assumption that the people actually playing are reasonable and acting in good faith is unwarranted. It won’t always be true, but again-rules can’t solve people acting in bad faith.

[Razade]

Sure, write with clarity.

And that's all I'm advocating for. Rules expressly written for fiat at the table go against this, and that's all I'm arguing against.


But I don’t think an assumption that the people actually playing are reasonable and acting in good faith is unwarranted. It won’t always be true, but again-rules can’t solve people acting in bad faith.

I'm not assuming they aren't. I'm not assuming they are either. My statement that writing rules that hinge on Game Master rulings at the table are objectively not good design holds no matter what you assume, because clarity is never a bad thing when it comes to rulings. Lack of clarity however is if your goal is to make a game that's easy to apply in a real time situation. I also fully agree that rules can't solve people acting in bad faith, but what you can do with rules is write in such a way that if the GM is acting in bad faith, you'll be able to suss it out much more quickly because they won't have any ambiguity to hide behind.

[GeoffWatson]

You can only modify each spell once.
It's expensive to do so permanently.

There are a few spells where it could be a problem, but the problem is with those spells, rather than generally.

[kazaryu]

You can only modify each spell once.
It's expensive to do so permanently.

There are a few spells where it could be a problem, but the problem is with those spells, rather than generally.

its expensive to permanently alter a spell...until it isn't. not everyone plays in the same types of games. some people like giving their players 10's of thousands of gold. and several different magic items.

the potential problem here is that you're able to permanently remove certain spell limitations. this will obviously not be a problem across the board...no balance problem actually *can* be across the board. However, the way i see it, wizards is just doubling down on the things that made high level wizards problematic at certain tables

[Schwann145]

Feels like a lot of bad arguments happening in this discussion.

For one:
The idea that "expensive spell focuses" are more rare than other items because they don't exist on a list in a book is ridiculous on it's face. Nothing exists in the game that the DM doesn't want to exist. If the DM has decided that the town of X only has three longswords available, then no amount of random rolling on a table or pointing to suggested availability will change that; there will be three longswords, no more and no less.
This is true for everything. Every. Thing. Every expensive material component will be limited by the DM, whether it's a diamond, or an expensive mirror, or a casting focus - you'll have access to as many as your DM wants you to have access to, no more and no less.

For two:
These effects are not as problematic as people are making them out to be. It feels very "Chicken Little" in here, tbh. This process requires a crapload of time, a bigger crapload of gold, and doesn't even begin to approach a "concerning" level (which I debate is concerning in the first place) until level 9. Not to mention that having these spells prepared means your working with even fewer relevant adventuring spells, so this is going to be a largely downtime activity, and downtime tends to be infrequent; after all, you've got evil to vanquish/people to save/places to go/things to do!

Thirdly:
Wizard isn't, and has never been, a "problem." Very specific spells (sometimes in very specific combinations) have always been the problem. This is a very real distinction and it'd be great if we could stop vilifying the class for the fault of the spells.

[Sigreid]

Simulacrum shouldn't be a spell you can just learn.
Even if made considerably weaker, it's an incredibly effective body for how cheap it is.

It'd make more sense if Simulacrum was more like a magic item-something you can only get in limited amounts, requiring a quest or exorbitant amount of money to get, possibly both. NOT something you can just... Make with a day of downtime and some moderately expensive reagants.

I've never actually seen it be a problem at the table. Mainly because the players know at the end of the day they have to play a game the DM wants to DM and few if any DM's want to DM a wizard making a bazillion copies of himself.

[Theodoxus]

For two:
These effects are not as problematic as people are making them out to be. It feels very "Chicken Little" in here, tbh. This process requires a crapload of time, a bigger crapload of gold, and doesn't even begin to approach a "concerning" level (which I debate is concerning in the first place) until level 9. Not to mention that having these spells prepared means your working with even fewer relevant adventuring spells, so this is going to be a largely downtime activity, and downtime tends to be infrequent; after all, you've got evil to vanquish/people to save/places to go/things to do!


Except, they don't...


If another Wizard feature gives spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this Spellcasting feature, but those spells otherwise follow the rules in this feature.

Now, I'm one to agree they're not going to be problematic at most tables. However, I also recognize that the Internet is eternal and tends to bend towards evil, so as time goes on, there will be threads, here, there, everywhere, that provide an answer to "What is the best D&DOne Arcane spell to Modify and Create as a level 9+ Wizard?"

[JNAProductions]

I've never actually seen it be a problem at the table. Mainly because the players know at the end of the day they have to play a game the DM wants to DM and few if any DM's want to DM a wizard making a bazillion copies of himself.

If something is in effect banned, it might as well be actually banned. Or made reasonable to use, so it doesn't need to be banned.

[kazaryu]

Feels like a lot of bad arguments happening in this discussion.


Thirdly:
Wizard isn't, and has never been, a "problem." Very specific spells (sometimes in very specific combinations) have always been the problem. This is a very real distinction and it'd be great if we could stop vilifying the class for the fault of the spells.

except...there are tables that struggle with wizards (well, high level prepared casters in general, with wizards tending to be the pinnacle). and i mean wizards, the class as a whole. not specific spells. or rather, if it *is* specific spells, its a lot of them. Yes, there are some spells that are specifically problematic, on their own. things like simulacrum, the conjure X spells, animate objects, etc. That isn't the only thing that people are referring to when they discuss wizards being a problem.

When wizards (as an archetypical example of high level casters) are a problem (and its not at every table), they're a problem because they can combine vast generalism with intense specialization. in other words they can end up having the best tool to solve a particular problem...but for several types of problems. they can prepare 1 or 2 social manipulation spells that end up being far more reliable than just having a decent bonus to casting. and its not a terribly expensive cost, because they still have plenty of other slots to prepare high powered control spells like hypnotic pattern. oh..but also grab fly because *that* can come in handy for tons of types of challenges. but don't forget counterspell, shield and absorb elements to round out your defense. hmmm maybe throw in fireball and finger of death for some solid damage...etc, etc.

you may not find it a problem for your particular DM style. but forums abound with exactly this complaint, and not from theorycrafters.

Also, i don't think that anyone is outright saying that these are guaranteed to be problem spells. We're simply discussing where potential problems might creep in. since it seems like the problems they'd cause are specifically going to be for the types of groups that already struggle with high level caster shenannigans.

you think that 1000 gold per permanent change is expensive? i literally just gave my party 30k gold at level 6. why? because i want them to be able to engage with the world and its economy. Now im not personally worried about these spells as a problem for my group, they just hit lvl 8 and of the like 9 asi's they've distributed amongst them...at most 3 have been to primary stats, and a few have been to dump stats. in one case, one of those dump stats was Dex...on a bard. point im trying to make is they aren't optimizers. But its asinine to assume that noone is giving their players the resources they'd need abuse the **** outta these spells.

[Schwann145]

Except, they don't...

If another Wizard feature gives spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this Spellcasting feature, but those spells otherwise follow the rules in this feature.

It's entirely possible that it's just an editing oversight, but none of the free Wizard-only spells are "always prepared." They are added to your spellbook at the levels you get them at, but you still have to prepare them like any other spell.
It's even been pointed out in the other thread that if you lose your spellbook and don't have Scribe Spell already prepared, you're basically screwed as you won't have any way to rebuild your book unless you happen to find another spellbook to work from.


except...there are tables that struggle with wizards (well, high level prepared casters in general, with wizards tending to be the pinnacle).
Having a problem with spellcasters is different than having a problem with Wizards. They're entirely different discussions, IMO.
Your example argument could be made for Sorcerers, or Bards, or even Druids/Clerics to a lesser degree.
When Wizards are called out specifically, its always for things like Wall of Force or Simulacrum. Wizard exclusives, sure, but only a problem because of how they're tuned, not because of anything having to do with Wizard.


you think that 1000 gold per permanent change is expensive? i literally just gave my party 30k gold at level 6. why? because i want them to be able to engage with the world and its economy.
Not all DMs are as generous with wealth and/or items, for one.
For two, a Wizard investing into a lot of very expensive foci is a Wizard who is less capable of engaging with the world and it's economy. Might could end up with a reputation as a "crazed recluse, too obsessed with their craft!"

[Theodoxus]

Scribe Spell is the one that was overlooked as an editing error.

5TH LEVEL: MEMORIZE SPELLIn your magical research, you have unlocked the secrets of Memorize Spell and add that spell to your spellbook. [so, it's always prepared, and doesn't take a preparation slot]

7TH LEVEL: MODIFY SPELLIn your magical research, you have unlocked the secrets of Modify Spell and add that spell to your spellbook [so, it's always prepared, and doesn't take a preparation slot]

9TH LEVEL: CREATE SPELLIn your magical research, you have unlocked the secrets of Create Spell and add that spell to your spellbook. That spell is cast immediately after Modify Spell and is followed by Scribe Spell. If you complete that trio of spells, you create a spell of your own. [so. it's always prepared, and doesn't take a preparation slot]

Given the preponderance of 'Scribe Spell' being in the Wizard's description in various places, Occam's Razor, the editor of the UA probably thought it was described somewhere as being a class feature, and didn't think to make sure/correct the oversight. I certainly have no problem saying it's always prepared and doesn't take a preparation slot.

[kazaryu]

It's even been pointed out in the other thread that if you lose your spellbook and don't have Scribe Spell already prepared, you're basically screwed as you won't have any way to rebuild your book unless you happen to find another spellbook to work from. well, you're not entirely screwed. you only need your spellbook in order to change your prepared spells (and to ritually cast spells). you'd still have the spells you had previously prepared. but i do agree with you that overall this interaction is weird.



Having a problem with spellcasters is different than having a problem with Wizards. They're entirely different discussions, IMO.
Your example argument could be made for Sorcerers, or Bards, or even Druids/Clerics to a lesser degree.
When Wizards are called out specifically, its always for things like Wall of Force or Simulacrum. Wizard exclusives, sure, but only a problem because of how they're tuned, not because of anything having to do with Wizard. no. wizards are called out specifically for this because they have, generally, the most versatile spell list. and the spells they have that cover all these different scenarios tend to be incredibly potent, as compared to what druids/clerics get. you can make a similar argument for warlcoks/sorcerers but they have fewer spells known, and they can't swap them out as easily. meaning that wizards can more easily curate their list. and more able to afford having a few niche spells prepared. Bards are the closest, especially lore bards due to magical secrets. but even they don't get anywhere near the same access to the wizard spell list that a wizard gets. nono, for these types of tables, wizards are the archetype of the problem. other full casters dabble in it, wizards master it.


[/quote]Not all DMs are as generous with wealth and/or items, for one.[/quote] i...my entire point was exactly this. not all DM's are the same. I never claimed that this was a general problem for the game...no, worse. i made the exacty opposite claim. i specifically carved out a particular game style that this could be a problem for. and explain how it could be a problem for that particular game style.



For two, a Wizard investing into a lot of very expensive foci is a Wizard who is less capable of engaging with the world and it's economy. Might could end up with a reputation as a "crazed recluse, too obsessed with their craft!" and the wizard would care about their reputation because....?

it doens't matter what the wizards reputation is if they're making at the table feel inadequate because they're able to customize all of their spells, eliminating a huge chunk of the limitations that make them even somewhat reasonable like removing v/s components from spells that are powerful social manipulators. because...well spell components are a thing that makes those spells risky to use.


to be clear. Im not saying that, for sure, these spells are a major problem. im simply pointing out the things that immediately jump out to me as having potential for abuse. and raised a discussion to see what other peoples opinions are.


Scribe Spell is the one that was overlooked as an editing error.


Given the preponderance of 'Scribe Spell' being in the Wizard's description in various places, Occam's Razor, the editor of the UA probably thought it was described somewhere as being a class feature, and didn't think to make sure/correct the oversight. I certainly have no problem saying it's always prepared and doesn't take a preparation slot.

having a spell in your spellbook is not the same as having it prepared. the feature you referenced earlier said 'if a feature gives you a spell you always have prepared...' and none of those features are listed as 'always prepared'. its possible that all of them are an editing oversight. but as written, none of them are permanently prepared.

that said the only spell they *need* to prepare is create spell, as its the only one that isn't a ritual.

[Theodoxus]

having a spell in your spellbook is not the same as having it prepared.

however the only spell they *need* to prepare is create spell, as its the only one that isn't a ritual.

Yes, I know that. I do grok how Wizards work.

Explain to me, then, what is the point of this sentence:
"If another Wizard feature gives spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this Spellcasting feature, but those spells otherwise follow the rules in this feature."

I highlighted the only places in the entire Wizard description where "another Wizard feature gives spells..." So, why have that sentence at all, if it doesn't mean exactly what I postulated?

[kazaryu]

Yes, I know that. I do grok how Wizards work.

Explain to me, then, what is the point of this sentence:
"If another Wizard feature gives spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this Spellcasting feature, but those spells otherwise follow the rules in this feature."

I highlighted the only places in the entire Wizard description where "another Wizard feature gives spells..." So, why have that sentence at all, if it doesn't mean exactly what I postulated?

well...why did you highlight those particular features...oh...right as evidence that all of the features *except* for scribe spell already fall under the clause making them free to prepare, rather than an editing oversight.

so i pointed out that none of those features actually do fall under that clause. you're point was, objectively, incorrect.

Now to answer your new question, i have 2 responses.

First :its possible, one might even say probable, its an editing oversight...which you were denying in your previous post.

second: its possible that clause is there in anticipation of subclass features that *do* give permanently prepared spells.

[GeneralVryth]

Yes, I know that. I do grok how Wizards work.

Explain to me, then, what is the point of this sentence:
"If another Wizard feature gives spells that you always have prepared, those spells don’t count against the number of spells you can prepare with this Spellcasting feature, but those spells otherwise follow the rules in this feature."

I highlighted the only places in the entire Wizard description where "another Wizard feature gives spells..." So, why have that sentence at all, if it doesn't mean exactly what I postulated?

It's in all 3 casters descriptions (with a couple of tweaks). It's essentially covering the idea that features that give you always prepared spells don't count against a class's prepared spell limits. I would expect similar language in new versions of the other casters now that they got rid of the prepared spells being based on slot nonsense.

[Kane0]

now that they got rid of the prepared spells being based on slot nonsense.

And thank goodness for that

[Bane's Wolf]

Modifying and creating new spells is Freaking awesome, and I hope we can keep it, after the playtest.
It does feel like they should be features, not spells, but it doesn't break things for me too badly.

That said, i feel the potential danger in just letting players modify spells without some controls in place.

I don't see a problem with modifying a spell once to make it special, but once a New Spell is created, we need to look at it's power compared to other spells.

Some of the modifications are side-grades, but others are definite Upgrades that should increase the new spell's Level.

-------------

- Components. Remove one of the spell’s components: Verbal, Somatic, or Material. You can’t remove the Material component of a spell that consumes that component.
This should probably raise the spell's level by 1

- Concentration. If the spell requires Concentration, damage can’t break your Concentration on the spell.
Damage immune concentration is very new to me. I feel it should probably raise spell level by 1.

- Damage Type. If the spell has a damage type, replace it with one of the following types: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Necrotic, Poison, or Thunder. If the spell has multiple damage types, you can change only one of them.
I don't think changing damage types greatly increases the power of the spell, in general.

- Range. If the spell has a range of at least 5 feet and doesn’t have a range of Self, increase its range by a number of feet equal to 30 times your Wizard level.
Wow - this is a problem, and should be clarified. I don't like that Caster level is suddenly a factor.
If i create the spell at wizard level 9, is the range set at 270 feet?
Does it become 300 feet once i level up to 10?
Should i have waited to create it at a higher level to get more range?

either way, extra range might justify increasing spell level by 1

- Ritual. If the spell lacks the Ritual tag and has a casting time of at least 10 minutes, give it the Ritual tag.
I'm strangely fine with letting most spells, with a casting time of 10 minutes, become rituals. As others have said, Similacrum shenanigans is a problem with that spell, not the class

- Targets. If the spell affects one or more creatures and doesn’t have a range of Self, it now affects only your allies or enemies (choose which when you cast Modify Spell).

once again, this feels like it should raise the spell level by 1

-------------------------------

I hope that many of my concerns with creating a new spell can be mitigated by raising the level of the spell to better reflect it's power.
It also means no-one is going to mess with a 9th level spell

I might also mitigate the concern (and hopefully make my wizard think carefully), by limiting how many new spells can be created?
Perhaps each wizard is limited to only 3 new spells, ever

[Schwann145]

I could see the argument that, after enough changes from an upcast Modify spell, the result is powerful enough to increase to the next spell level.
But also... c'mon. Suggesting that, say, removing the Verbal component from Control Water puts it on par with 5th level spells? No way, Jose. :smalltongue:

Now, what seems really interesting to me is this part:

Components. Remove one of the spell’s components: Verbal, Somatic, or Material. You can’t remove the Material component of a spell that consumes that component.
This comes across as very strange to me. This would suggest that you could not remove the material component of a Glyph of Warding spell (100gp diamond dust), but you could remove the material component of a Leomund's Secret Chest (5000gp regular sized chest and 50gp tiny replica chest), despite the fact that the chests are integral to the spell! Also, a Magic Jar spell - you can eliminate the material component, which is the gem that stores the souls that swap! Without the components... where do you put things without the actual chest? Where do the souls go without the gem?

Super super awkward.

[Psyren]

I'm not really interested in debating how words are used with you either.

If you keep expecting one while they design for the other, you're likely going to keep being disappointed then.


Assuming a healthy table is fine to do.
No amount of rules can make a toxic table good.

Exactly this.


its expensive to permanently alter a spell...until it isn't. not everyone plays in the same types of games. some people like giving their players 10's of thousands of gold. and several different magic items.

You can still give your players both of these things without them being able to spam this spell.

[Bane's Wolf]

I could see the argument that, after enough changes from an upcast Modify spell, the result is powerful enough to increase to the next spell level.
But also... c'mon. Suggesting that, say, removing the Verbal component from Control Water puts it on par with 5th level spells? No way, Jose. :smalltongue:



Yeah...
Some of these Modifications shouldn't increase spell levels necessarily. It is perhaps better to keep the spell at the same level as an exception.
Fireball and Lightning Bolt deal more damage that a 3rd level spell should, but the creators decided that is fine, since those two are Iconic DnD spells.

Maybe the same guidelines can apply to "BaneWolf's Silent Aqua Manipulation" :smalltongue:

But "Banewolf's Anti-Friendly Fire Fireball" seems a little strong for a 3rd level spell.
Or perhaps not, if it's one of Banewolf's 3 special spells?

I'd love to do a breakdown of every possible modification of every spell, and compare power levels, but that sounds exhausting and probably not worth the trouble :smallfrown:

I guess i just don't have a proper handle on how much the modifications actually affect the spell's power level.



Now, what seems really interesting to me is this part:

This comes across as very strange to me. This would suggest that you could not remove the material component of a Glyph of Warding spell (100gp diamond dust), but you could remove the material component of a Leomund's Secret Chest (5000gp regular sized chest and 50gp tiny replica chest), despite the fact that the chests are integral to the spell! Also, a Magic Jar spell - you can eliminate the material component, which is the gem that stores the souls that swap! Without the components... where do you put things without the actual chest? Where do the souls go without the gem?

Super super awkward.

Yeeeeeah - that is gonna be very awkward. :smalltongue:
GM guidance could help, but i'd like the creative team to maybe bake this idea a little longer, with feedback, to make sure it doesn't damage the game.
I Love being able to make my own spells. i don't want it to become a problematic mechanic :smallwink:

[Theodoxus]

Could potentially put a clause akin to Wish that states:

CREATE SPELL
5th-Level Transmutation Spell (Wizard)
Casting Time: Reaction, in response to yourself casting Modify Spell
Range: Self
Component: V, S, M (an Arcane Focus, which the spell consumes, worth at least 1,000 GP per level of the spell altered by Modify Spell)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Synthesizing your arcane knowledge and power, you strive to create a new spell. To succeed, you must concentrate for 1 hour and meditate on the spell you just altered with Modify Spell, otherwise this spell fails. If you succeed, you must start casting Scribe Spell within the next 10 minutes and add the altered spell to your spellbook. Once the spell is in your spellbook, it becomes one of your known spells, it gains the Wizard source tag rather than the Arcane tag, and it gains a name of your choice.
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast Create Spell once you have successfully created a spell.

(Or whatever percentage you think is fair, but I think 33 is low enough that a few Spells will be created, but high enough that players would think twice about willy-nilly creating spells all the time.)

Another option might be to give it a 10 percent chance per spell level that you'd lose the ability to cast Create Spell. That would certainly curtail modifications of spells above 5th level, while allowing for more likely alterations of spells that have a lesser impact on the universe. (I'd look at probably lowering the arcane focus cost if I were to go this route.)

[Hurrashane]

I don't think the unbreakable concentration of spells is that big a deal. Between resilient Con and warcaster they were practically there already.

[Boverk]

Could potentially put a clause akin to Wish that states:

CREATE SPELL
5th-Level Transmutation Spell (Wizard)
Casting Time: Reaction, in response to yourself casting Modify Spell
Range: Self
Component: V, S, M (an Arcane Focus, which the spell consumes, worth at least 1,000 GP per level of the spell altered by Modify Spell)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
Synthesizing your arcane knowledge and power, you strive to create a new spell. To succeed, you must concentrate for 1 hour and meditate on the spell you just altered with Modify Spell, otherwise this spell fails. If you succeed, you must start casting Scribe Spell within the next 10 minutes and add the altered spell to your spellbook. Once the spell is in your spellbook, it becomes one of your known spells, it gains the Wizard source tag rather than the Arcane tag, and it gains a name of your choice.
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast Create Spell once you have successfully created a spell.

(Or whatever percentage you think is fair, but I think 33 is low enough that a few Spells will be created, but high enough that players would think twice about willy-nilly creating spells all the time.)

Another option might be to give it a 10 percent chance per spell level that you'd lose the ability to cast Create Spell. That would certainly curtail modifications of spells above 5th level, while allowing for more likely alterations of spells that have a lesser impact on the universe. (I'd look at probably lowering the arcane focus cost if I were to go this route.)

I'm not a fan of key features of a class having a chance to be permanently disabled....if it has to have a chance for being disabled, it should at least be temporary.

[Sigreid]

If something is in effect banned, it might as well be actually banned. Or made reasonable to use, so it doesn't need to be banned.

Spell not banned though. Just not used that way.

[Witty Username]

I've never actually seen it be a problem at the table. Mainly because the players know at the end of the day they have to play a game the DM wants to DM and few if any DM's want to DM a wizard making a bazillion copies of himself.

That and that is not simulacrum, but specifically wish and simulacrum in combination unless you are a wizard who is bankrupt and died of old age years before the adventure started.

--
Wouldn't simulacrum still be an 8 hour cast and 5000 gp (worth of ice if I remember right). Even as a ritual that is going to be brutal on upkeep.

[MrStabby]

except...there are tables that struggle with wizards (well, high level prepared casters in general, with wizards tending to be the pinnacle). and i mean wizards, the class as a whole. not specific spells. or rather, if it *is* specific spells, its a lot of them. Yes, there are some spells that are specifically problematic, on their own. things like simulacrum, the conjure X spells, animate objects, etc. That isn't the only thing that people are referring to when they discuss wizards being a problem.

When wizards (as an archetypical example of high level casters) are a problem (and its not at every table), they're a problem because they can combine vast generalism with intense specialization. in other words they can end up having the best tool to solve a particular problem...but for several types of problems. they can prepare 1 or 2 social manipulation spells that end up being far more reliable than just having a decent bonus to casting. and its not a terribly expensive cost, because they still have plenty of other slots to prepare high powered control spells like hypnotic pattern. oh..but also grab fly because *that* can come in handy for tons of types of challenges. but don't forget counterspell, shield and absorb elements to round out your defense. hmmm maybe throw in fireball and finger of death for some solid damage...etc, etc.

you may not find it a problem for your particular DM style. but forums abound with exactly this complaint, and not from theorycrafters.

Also, i don't think that anyone is outright saying that these are guaranteed to be problem spells. We're simply discussing where potential problems might creep in. since it seems like the problems they'd cause are specifically going to be for the types of groups that already struggle with high level caster shenannigans.

you think that 1000 gold per permanent change is expensive? i literally just gave my party 30k gold at level 6. why? because i want them to be able to engage with the world and its economy. Now im not personally worried about these spells as a problem for my group, they just hit lvl 8 and of the like 9 asi's they've distributed amongst them...at most 3 have been to primary stats, and a few have been to dump stats. in one case, one of those dump stats was Dex...on a bard. point im trying to make is they aren't optimizers. But its asinine to assume that noone is giving their players the resources they'd need abuse the **** outta these spells.

I think the issue I have is that its not wizards that are the problem in general, its optimised wizards. Our player that wants a fun thematic build, focussed round a few of their favourite things is going to have a very, very different experience to someone who just looks to take all the best spells irrespective of theme. I am not even talking in terms of system mastery here, but in terms of priority.

I fear we have a system where the optimisers drive the power levels too strongly, and likely efforts to curtail the worst excesses of optimised play will have a modest effect there, whilst screwing just as hard any other player in the same party persuing a more fluffy build.


I would certainly want to avoid the snide comments often made towards DMs that don't like this - the idea that if a DM doesn't like some of the powers its somehow a difficiency there, that they just don't know how to handle that type of game or that they lack 'creativity' in dealing with those issues. The absolute best DMs I have played with have been those that build a better game by curating the content/ideas that would work well together for a fun game for all.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not a fan of key features of a class having a chance to be permanently disabled....if it has to have a chance for being disabled, it should at least be temporary.

Ok, this will make the process prohibitively complex, but what if the chance to lose the ability to cast the spell were based on the actual modifications themselves? Maybe, removing components sets the bar higher, where making an energy substitution (which I'm guess will be 90+% of the players out there) won't have any chance of failure at all.

I'm not sure how I'd rank the modifications for chances, I'm not a game designer - but I'm sure a consensus could be made in at least ranking the mods in power.

[Boverk]

I think the issue is really if you lose the one of the key features of your class, a lot of people will either quit playing or kill off their character and reroll.

[Psyren]

If Created Spells really are too powerful, I think the solution is to make them more costly (whether to create or to use, preferably the latter), not to remove the ability to create at all.


I don't think the unbreakable concentration of spells is that big a deal. Between resilient Con and warcaster they were practically there already.

Also, again, it's not actually unbreakable - it's just immune to breaking from damage. Incapacitation still breaks concentration, and lots of monsters can inflict that, especially on a class that doesn't get Con saves natively.

[MoiMagnus]

First, I think whatever gold cost is there should be exponential in the spell level, not linear. So "multiplied by 2 for every spell level" or something like that.

Then, IMO, the fact that you can write down the spell after creating it could be removed.
A spell would remained created only if the wizard is preparing it continuously, so the effect of "create spell" would be that the modification persists if you prepare again the same spell. As soon as they don't prepare it a single time, the modification would be lost (and the creation would need to be restarted).

[Boverk]

First, I think whatever gold cost is there should be exponential in the spell level, not linear. So "multiplied by 2 for every spell level" or something like that.

Then, IMO, the fact that you can write down the spell after creating it could be removed.
A spell would remained created only if the wizard is preparing it continuously, so the effect of "create spell" would be that the modification persists if you prepare again the same spell. As soon as they don't prepare it a single time, the modification would be lost (and the creation would need to be restarted).

The Cost bit can be tweaked, but the bit about having to prepare it every day is rough...and it also doesn't fit with the Arcane Researcher schtick. You should be able to write it out so you understand the meaning, even if someone without your unique experiences with magic couldn't understand it.

If it needs to be reigned in, I'd focus more on the modifications that are problematic.

[Theodoxus]

I think the issue is really if you lose the one of the key features of your class, a lot of people will either quit playing or kill off their character and reroll.

I've never heard of anyone quitting because they lost the use of Wish. But whatever.

[Boverk]

I've never heard of anyone quitting because they lost the use of Wish. But whatever.

Wish is a single spell...Modify and Create Spells are core to the new wizard design.

[kazaryu]

If Created Spells really are too powerful, I think the solution is to make them more costly (whether to create or to use, preferably the latter), not to remove the ability to create at all.


this has potential.

from what i see the types of games this is likely to be dangerous for, its because of people enjoying being relatively free with money/magic items. Making it more expensive could certainly help

[Segev]

Am I the only one who finds "create spell" to me largely underwhelming?

Sure, modifying existing spells is potentially powerful, but when creating a spell, don't you want to be able to do more than make "silent coldball?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I take exception to this whole Create Spell thing. Not for power reasons--those are all over the map. But for two main reasons.

1. It creates an air-breathing mermaid problem--instead of creating a spell being something that is at the plot/character/downtime level for anyone who can cast a spell, now it's a specific button belonging to one and only one class, with extremely limited (fictionally) possibilities.
2. As a "single button press", it makes absolutely no sense for this particular incarnation to be a wizard thing. There's no study, no experimentation. Just "push button, new spell comes out." That kind of on-the-fly improv is so much more the domain of a sorcerer or a bard, thematically. Wizards should have a long, involved process that requires a lab.

In fact, I'd much prefer a model where creating new spell effects was a sorcerer thing entirely, with some randomness/irreproducibility. Wizards then take that effect, codify it, refine it, and make it into a nice stable, repeatable effect. And bards would be jamming--slipping bits from one spell effect into another.

Instead, you have this thematically...uninspired blob occupying the conceptual space, making it much harder to fit anything else in. And much less likely for new players/DMs. "I want to figure out a new spell that <X>! No, only wizards can do that and it has to be a small modification on an existing one!"


Am I the only one who finds "create spell" to me largely underwhelming?

Sure, modifying existing spells is potentially powerful, but when creating a spell, don't you want to be able to do more than make "silent coldball?"

You wrote this just as I was writing the above. I absolutely agree with you. "Create Spell" isn't at all what this does.

[GeneralVryth]

I take exception to this whole Create Spell thing. Not for power reasons--those are all over the map. But for two main reasons.

1. It creates an air-breathing mermaid problem--instead of creating a spell being something that is at the plot/character/downtime level for anyone who can cast a spell, now it's a specific button belonging to one and only one class, with extremely limited (fictionally) possibilities.
2. As a "single button press", it makes absolutely no sense for this particular incarnation to be a wizard thing. There's no study, no experimentation. Just "push button, new spell comes out." That kind of on-the-fly improv is so much more the domain of a sorcerer or a bard, thematically. Wizards should have a long, involved process that requires a lab.

In fact, I'd much prefer a model where creating new spell effects was a sorcerer thing entirely, with some randomness/irreproducibility. Wizards then take that effect, codify it, refine it, and make it into a nice stable, repeatable effect. And bards would be jamming--slipping bits from one spell effect into another.

Instead, you have this thematically...uninspired blob occupying the conceptual space, making it much harder to fit anything else in. And much less likely for new players/DMs. "I want to figure out a new spell that <X>! No, only wizards can do that and it has to be a small modification on an existing one!"


This is actually another reason I would like to see create spell re-flavored as a "Signature Spell" feature (that the Wizard only has a limited number of). Wizards focusing on a handful of spells and getting more out of them than usual flows much nicer than creating brand new spells, and it also has more logical balance limits (you can only specialize in a few spells). It also gives Wizards a version of metamagic that is a nice contrast to Sorcerers. Wizards choose a few spells they want to be experts with and modify them, where as Sorcerers modify any spells they know on the fly as needed using their more instinctual control over magic.

[Zevox]

Am I the only one who finds "create spell" to me largely underwhelming?

Sure, modifying existing spells is potentially powerful, but when creating a spell, don't you want to be able to do more than make "silent coldball?"
Yeah, that's kind of where my feelings on it wind up. I get that creating new spells as a Wizard thing is a cool concept, but I think you'd need much more complex rules than this to satisfyingly allow for that.

Well, that and it steps too much on the Sorcerer's toes, even if they are trying to make the Wizard need to spend prep time to get those effects when the Sorcerer can do them on the fly. I'd rather the Wizard be defined by the breadth of spell options they can get through their spellbook, while the Sorcerer has more limited options but the ability to alter the spells.

[Razade]

If you keep expecting one while they design for the other, you're likely going to keep being disappointed then.

You're right. I keep hoping for good design and am constantly disappointed with what Wizards make. We don't disagree. I also expect people to see the bad and design better systems and yet, here we are, you defending poor design choices.

[Psyren]

I don't see spell creation being a wizard ability as limiting other classes at all. Putting aside that the new DMG will still have spell creation guidelines anyone can use per Perkins - wizards' identity (which is now being mechanically supported better than ever before) is that they are the class that most thoroughly studies magic itself, as well as the class that depends more on preparation than spontaneity. Modify and Create spell realize this identity very elegantly, and wizards being able to do it more easily makes perfect sense to me.


You're right. I keep hoping for good design and am constantly disappointed with what Wizards make. We don't disagree. I also expect people to see the bad and design better systems and yet, here we are, you defending poor design choices.

I have no problem pointing out bad design when I see it. I can also recognize fringe opinions.

[Dalinar]

It kinda blows my mind that people play at tables where a several thousand gold material component expenditure for Create Spell is not utterly prohibitive, or at least enough to give a typical wizard quite a bit of pause before deciding to make the rather limited possibilities presented by Modify Spell permanent. (A Simulacrum's components will set you back 1500gp!).

Then again, my table isn't super by-the-book. I don't think I've seen 1000g in my pockets yet, though we haven't hit the back half of T2 when Create Spell might be something you'd want to plan for.

So I went through some books (specifically DMG and Xanathar's) trying to find points of comparison so we can talk about opportunity costs. Since you get Create Spell at level 9, I'm assuming the wizard is looking to create a fifth-level spell, so 5000gp. I'm also assuming getting that in the form of an Arcane Focus isn't a huge hassle. Now, an alternative way a character might spend 5000g to empower themselves is to acquire magic items. Most of the guidance I'm seeing makes it look like that's roughly how much you can expect to spend on a rare-quality item (with the exception of XGTE buying rules, which price them at 2d10 x 1000gp; and the crafting rules in the same book, which involve a formula/recipe, an exotic material requiring a quest, some downtime, and 2000gp).

For a wizard, a rare magic item might look something like a +2 Arcane Grimoire, any Fizban's item with its first two abilities available (such as a Dragon-Touched Focus), some types of Ioun Stone (giving you something like surprise immunity or +1 AC), a Gem of Seeing, a Portable Hole, a Mantle of Spell Resistance... plenty of others, of course, no point in listing every one, but some of those are absolutely not worth selling just to buff one of your spells, IMO. On the other hand, if you have one you don't think you'll make good use of, then sure, feed it into the Create Spell grinder! Though maybe grab something for the party martials before you do that. They'll appreciate it.

So (and I don't intend this in a dismissive way), what usage of Create Spell do you think would make a better use of your gold than acquiring a magic item?

---

Balance aside, I do hope this doesn't end up feeling like stepping on Sorcerer toes. I think they've left enough of a feel-difference between the flexible but wearying Metamagic and the more permanent but foresight-taxing Modify and Create Spell... spells. Would like to see them flesh out the Create side of things more, especially if you could get more powerful effects from Modify Spell at the cost of increasing the spell's level.

[Kane0]

My games are about half and half between low-gp where the party is still striving for full plate at level 6 and high-gp where we are looking for the biggest city we can travel to in order to buy up a business or custom order a magic item

[Razade]

I have no problem pointing out bad design when I see it. I can also recognize fringe opinions.

At least one other person on this very thread echoed the same sentiments, and it's a fairly big movement outside of D&D which last I checked was still part of this hobby. Dungeons and Dragons and Wizards of the Coast are not the forefront, or even cutting edge, of the d20 system let alone TTRPGs in general. Dismissing things you personally don't agree with as fringe is an easy rhetorical flourish but it doesn't make it so. It'd be easy for me to simply dismiss your view as being too deeply invested in WoTC's design but it'd be cheap. Just like calling something fringe, when you demonstrate you don't know where the general design philosophy of things outside your chosen game are.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, that's kind of where my feelings on it wind up. I get that creating new spells as a Wizard thing is a cool concept, but I think you'd need much more complex rules than this to satisfyingly allow for that.

Well, that and it steps too much on the Sorcerer's toes, even if they are trying to make the Wizard need to spend prep time to get those effects when the Sorcerer can do them on the fly. I'd rather the Wizard be defined by the breadth of spell options they can get through their spellbook, while the Sorcerer has more limited options but the ability to alter the spells.

The opposite is probably a stronger method for spell creation. All you need is a list of things that magic cannot or shouldn't be able to do, a sliding scale for cost and time that is cross reference by setting/theme, and a risk mechanic to keep it in check.

Codifying something like this is a timebomb waiting to blow up games.

[Psyren]

It'd be easy for me to simply dismiss your view as being too deeply invested in WoTC's design but it'd be cheap.

You can go right ahead, it wouldn't matter to me. My opinion remains unchanged.


Yeah, that's kind of where my feelings on it wind up. I get that creating new spells as a Wizard thing is a cool concept, but I think you'd need much more complex rules than this to satisfyingly allow for that.

Well, that and it steps too much on the Sorcerer's toes, even if they are trying to make the Wizard need to spend prep time to get those effects when the Sorcerer can do them on the fly. I'd rather the Wizard be defined by the breadth of spell options they can get through their spellbook, while the Sorcerer has more limited options but the ability to alter the spells.

The opposite is probably a stronger method for spell creation. All you need is a list of things that magic cannot or shouldn't be able to do, a sliding scale for cost and time that is cross reference by setting/theme, and a risk mechanic to keep it in check.

Codifying something like this is a timebomb waiting to blow up games.

I'd say what the wizard is doing here is closer to spell editing or hacking than true spell creation. They're working within the confines of existing spell language/design. Like you can make a counterspell that has no components and works across the battlefield, which is much stronger, but it still requires you to be able to perceive the spellcasting of your enemy and still burns up your reaction. There's still plenty of room to homebrew a much more powerful counterspell, say one that can be used multiple times a round, or even create spells whose effects don't currently exist at all.

[stoutstien]

I'd say what the wizard is doing here is closer to spell editing or hacking than true spell creation. They're working within the confines of existing spell language/design. Like you can make a counterspell that has no components and works across the battlefield, which is much stronger, but it still requires you to be able to perceive the spellcasting of your enemy and still burns up your reaction. There's still plenty of room to homebrew a much more powerful counterspell, say one that can be used multiple times a round, or even create spells whose effects don't currently exist at all.
I can see that but it I'm not digging to much into the UA at this point past looking for low hanging fruit.
This has potential as a subclass or an whole class in and of itself but as a stable into wizards it's a risk without really pruning it back. which i doubt they are planning to do for wizards.

[verbatim]

I feel like modifying spells is kind of stepping on the Sorcerer's turf a bit, and am anxious about increasing the gold cost of being an optimized wizard.

[Segev]

I can see that but it I'm not digging to much into the UA at this point past looking for low hanging fruit.
This has potential as a subclass or an whole class in and of itself but as a stable into wizards it's a risk without really pruning it back. which i doubt they are planning to do for wizards.

Eh. At the price tag it has, it'll only ever be an issue in monty haul campaigns. Modifying a 5th level spell to have just one change is 5000 gp. That's not chump change.

Even then, I still don't like it. I think it more fits the sorcerer theme than the wizard one, as 5e has set them up. I understand the justification for putting it in wizard, but it is out of theme. I'm all for wizards researching new spells, but this is tinkering around the edges, not true spell research. For sorcerers, the ability to modify spells to use shortcuts or substitute talent for skill or to otherwise do weird things with them is entirely in theme, and I don't think the OneD&D sorcerer is leaning hard enough into that, yet. MEtamagic remains underwhelming and tightly controlled in ways that make sure you can't be too creative with it.

I think sorcerers should get modify spell and create spell as written, and have them apply to spells the sorcerer knows as a sorcerer. They aren't magical research so much as personal expertise in warping their own magics. The higher level create spell uses magical reagents and the like to amplify and expand their power.

IT could even allow the addition of permanent metamagic to a spell, then, with additional cost, perhaps.

[stoutstien]

Eh. At the price tag it has, it'll only ever be an issue in monty haul campaigns. Modifying a 5th level spell to have just one change is 5000 gp. That's not chump change.

Even then, I still don't like it. I think it more fits the sorcerer theme than the wizard one, as 5e has set them up. I understand the justification for putting it in wizard, but it is out of theme. I'm all for wizards researching new spells, but this is tinkering around the edges, not true spell research. For sorcerers, the ability to modify spells to use shortcuts or substitute talent for skill or to otherwise do weird things with them is entirely in theme, and I don't think the OneD&D sorcerer is leaning hard enough into that, yet. MEtamagic remains underwhelming and tightly controlled in ways that make sure you can't be too creative with it.

I think sorcerers should get modify spell and create spell as written, and have them apply to spells the sorcerer knows as a sorcerer. They aren't magical research so much as personal expertise in warping their own magics. The higher level create spell uses magical reagents and the like to amplify and expand their power.

IT could even allow the addition of permanent metamagic to a spell, then, with additional cost, perhaps.

Aye it has some potential but it's off target and rough. I'd love to see a sorcerer origin that does this based on emotions or environmental input. Wild magic but less lol random. *Even if i find Wild sorcerer enjoyable it should have been an alternative option for something like this*

[Willie the Duck]

Ritual: i...think it should be obvious why this one *might* be a problem (although good on them for adding the limitation that the spell needs to have a 10 minute casting time to be made a ritual, so you can't make create spell a ritual.) but still...i just....i can't imagine how this won't be a problem. every spell that has a casting time of >10 minutes will have already been decided whether its ok for it to be a ritual or not...and the ones that would be problematic as rituals...are already not rituals. either that or, in practice, there are no spells that qualify since all spells with >10 minute casting time are already rituals...idk. either way its worriesome.

I am really trying to figure out what problem this solved or what it is trying to do. I am a big fan of ritual spells, but what I really wanted was for additional spells to be added to the naturally ritual list, such that non-wizards/clerics/druids could take the Ritual Caster feat and fill vital roles like negative-effect-remover or planar-travel-guide. Making Wizards even more the ritual spell class (although just barely, I can't think of a dozen spells this would effect that aren't already ritual spells), I don't know who was clamoring for it.

[Psyren]

I think "Wizards can modify one spell at a time for free if they can plan ahead, and more on a permanent basis if the DM provides them the resources to do so" while "Sorcerer can modify all their spells on the fly, and do so regardless of wealth" is a fine distinction between the two.

[Segev]

I think "Wizards can modify one spell at a time for free if they can plan ahead, and more on a permanent basis if the DM provides them the resources to do so" while "Sorcerer can modify all their spells on the fly, and do so regardless of wealth" is a fine distinction between the two.

Now if only sorcerers could modify them in interesting and creative ways, rather than rather boring and extremely limited ways. (To the point that you sometimes have to carefully choose spells known to be compatible with metamagics known.)

I see where you're coming from, but frankly, I would prefer wizards "modify" spells by actually researching genuinely new ones. The mechanization of it with create spell is...meh. I suppose what it's meant to do is create a lower bound as to the cost to research and develop new spells. 1000 gp, minimum, per spell level.

[Boverk]

Now if only sorcerers could modify them in interesting and creative ways, rather than rather boring and extremely limited ways. (To the point that you sometimes have to carefully choose spells known to be compatible with metamagics known.)

I see where you're coming from, but frankly, I would prefer wizards "modify" spells by actually researching genuinely new ones. The mechanization of it with create spell is...meh. I suppose what it's meant to do is create a lower bound as to the cost to research and develop new spells. 1000 gp, minimum, per spell level.

Creating completely new spells would be nice, but it'd be pretty hard to balance.

I guess you could set guidelines for Range, Area of Effect, Additional status effects, damage, etc.

and then adjust spell level accordingly, but that would be a nightmare for most people.

Since everyone has an internet, they could release a spell builder app, but it would still be pretty daunting to most.

[Segev]

Creating completely new spells would be nice, but it'd be pretty hard to balance.

I guess you could set guidelines for Range, Area of Effect, Additional status effects, damage, etc.

and then adjust spell level accordingly, but that would be a nightmare for most people.

Since everyone has an internet, they could release a spell builder app, but it would still be pretty daunting to most.

Oh, it's impossible to balance as a mechanical thing with build-a-bear points or similar criteria. Spell design can have guidelines, but they can't be more than that. It's even more delicate than monster design. In editions prior to OneD&D, it was always a thing that was given to DMs to adjudicate, with some guidance or guidelines on how to approach the design process, at most. It was very much a DMG thing. It also wasn't wizard-exclusive. Systemizing it enough to enable there to be class mechanics that give wizards a leg up on it would be tricky enough! I get why they approached it this way, but I think this approach only makes it worse, as somebody else said, in an Air-Breathing Mermaid sort of way: now, not only does it go from a nebulous thing that anybody can do with DM cooperation to being a wizard-exclusive feature, but spell creation becomes limited to spell modification. There is, for example, no way to research a spell that can transform you into a swarm of insects, if create spell is The Official Way to make "new" spells. (Whether you think such a spell should be allowed to exist or not is beside the point. No spell exists that can do that (unless you think polymorph does so, in which case shapechange would, too), and no spell exists that has parameters that can be modified in a way that permits that, at least not by the parameters of modify spell.)

I don't like it because it creates constraints while also giving a thematically "off" power to wizards. Before, if you came to me and said, "I want a version of fireball that does psychic damage and has only a material component," I would have said that sounds like a 5th or 6th level spell for removing two components like that and changing to a usually-better damage type. Now, it costs 9,000 gp and three castings of modify spell and create spell.

[Psyren]

Now if only sorcerers could modify them in interesting and creative ways, rather than rather boring and extremely limited ways. (To the point that you sometimes have to carefully choose spells known to be compatible with metamagics known.)

I see where you're coming from, but frankly, I would prefer wizards "modify" spells by actually researching genuinely new ones. The mechanization of it with create spell is...meh. I suppose what it's meant to do is create a lower bound as to the cost to research and develop new spells. 1000 gp, minimum, per spell level.

I find the core metamagic options creative and interesting; more importantly, we're a lot likely get more of those than we are new Modify Spell tags.

[Theodoxus]

Wish is a single spell...Modify and Create Spells are core to the new wizard design.

Create Spell is a single spell... I hope you see the irony.

[OvisCaedo]

I don't like it because it creates constraints while also giving a thematically "off" power to wizards. Before, if you came to me and said, "I want a version of fireball that does psychic damage and has only a material component," I would have said that sounds like a 5th or 6th level spell for removing two components like that and changing to a usually-better damage type. Now, it costs 9,000 gp and three castings of modify spell and create spell.

Well, you actually can't quite do that. Modify Spell can only be used on spells with the "Arcane" tag, and Create Spell's permanent result specifically removed the "Arcane" tag and replaces it with just "Wizard". Though these abilities have plenty of risk for really broken results, they did at least realize the most obvious potential issue of repeatedly modifying one spell and patched it out.

In general, though, I think tweaking properties of spells is much more in-theme for Wizards than Sorcerors. Metamagic isn't particularly thematically fitting at all, it's just the only mechanical identity they could come up with to justify the class existing without spontaneous casting being a thing any more.

edit: Also, on the subject of the costly component for Create Spell: it can be pretty expensive, but I think this is a rare case of the specificity of the component (arcane focus) not necessarily being an issue on top of the cost itself. You can just take a staff and embed xK gold worth of gems or platinum into it. Though I guess a GM can then argue back that putting gems in a staff makes it stop working as an arcane focus?

[Hurrashane]

I don't like it because it creates constraints while also giving a thematically "off" power to wizards. Before, if you came to me and said, "I want a version of fireball that does psychic damage and has only a material component," I would have said that sounds like a 5th or 6th level spell for removing two components like that and changing to a usually-better damage type. Now, it costs 9,000 gp and three castings of modify spell and create spell.

Well, you can't change the damage type to Psychic with modify spell, first off. Casting modify spell a second time will get rid of the first modified spell. So you'd be able to make a material only fireball with a 5th level Modify Spell, and then you'd cast create spell, you can cast modify as a ritual so you'd only need one 5th level spell slot and it'd cost 3000gp. Not sure where you're getting 9000gp from. If you wanted to change the damage type and drop two components you'd need a 6th level slot for Modify spell.

[Boverk]

Create Spell is a single spell... I hope you see the irony.

Sorry, I should have said, "Wish is a single spell that is not a defining feature of the class design"

[Rafaelfras]

Sorry, I should have said, "Wish is a single spell that is not a defining feature of the class design"

Regardless, when wish becomes a class feature for sorcerers (lvl18) it loses the chance of being lost. So yeah, they agree with you that losing a class feature permanently is not good


I think "Wizards can modify one spell at a time for free if they can plan ahead, and more on a permanent basis if the DM provides them the resources to do so" while "Sorcerer can modify all their spells on the fly, and do so regardless of wealth" is a fine distinction between the two.


Eh. At the price tag it has, it'll only ever be an issue in monty haul campaigns. Modifying a 5th level spell to have just one change is 5000 gp. That's not chump change.

Even then, I still don't like it. I think it more fits the sorcerer theme than the wizard one, as 5e has set them up. I understand the justification for putting it in wizard, but it is out of theme. I'm all for wizards researching new spells, but this is tinkering around the edges, not true spell research. For sorcerers, the ability to modify spells to use shortcuts or substitute talent for skill or to otherwise do weird things with them is entirely in theme, and I don't think the OneD&D sorcerer is leaning hard enough into that, yet. MEtamagic remains underwhelming and tightly controlled in ways that make sure you can't be too creative with it.

I think sorcerers should get modify spell and create spell as written, and have them apply to spells the sorcerer knows as a sorcerer. They aren't magical research so much as personal expertise in warping their own magics. The higher level create spell uses magical reagents and the like to amplify and expand their power.

IT could even allow the addition of permanent metamagic to a spell, then, with additional cost, perhaps.

Wizards have been modifying spells as long as sorcerers have in 5th ed.
Evokers get careful spell (sculpt spell) and maximize spell (overchanell), enchanters get twin spell (split enchantment), scribe get Trasmute spell (Awakened Spellbook), diviner Portent to replicate seeking spell and heightened spell, ilusionist get maluable ilusion that is akin to the new twin spell (a non ilusionist has to cast the spell again to get the same result).
So no, i dont agree that it isnt a wizard theme in 5th ed. On the contrary, lots of subclasses give you the power to modify your spells, it just different from the sorcerer.

[Theodoxus]

What if instead of a costly material component, it uses the casting requirement for permanent 'one use' spells (Teleport Circle, Hollow, and the like) requiring you to cast the same modified spell once a day for a year?

[kazaryu]

I think the issue I have is that its not wizards that are the problem in general, its optimised wizards. Our player that wants a fun thematic build, focussed round a few of their favourite things is going to have a very, very different experience to someone who just looks to take all the best spells irrespective of theme. I am not even talking in terms of system mastery here, but in terms of priority.

I fear we have a system where the optimisers drive the power levels too strongly, and likely efforts to curtail the worst excesses of optimised play will have a modest effect there, whilst screwing just as hard any other player in the same party persuing a more fluffy build. its not really optimizers though. yes, to an extent to make the most of these spells you need to optimize for general gameplay, as opposed to theme, to an extent. However the problem i described isn't power gamers. It makes sense, even in world, to pick spells that make sense for a given situation. it is a game after all. and you don't need to go all in on optimizing to cause more problems with this feature. Just a wizard doing normal wizard things (without these features) is enough to cause problems in some games. i simply think this new feature has the potential to exacerbate those problems.

i think its also important to note, that these things are going to more strongly affect high GP/magic games, not high optimization games. since high OP doesn't imply a plethora of wealth.



I would certainly want to avoid the snide comments often made towards DMs that don't like this - the idea that if a DM doesn't like some of the powers its somehow a deficiency there, that they just don't know how to handle that type of game or that they lack 'creativity' in dealing with those issues. The absolute best DMs I have played with have been those that build a better game by curating the content/ideas that would work well together for a fun game for all. oh im not speaking snidely of anyone. from my perspective its purely about preference.


Am I the only one who finds "create spell" to me largely underwhelming?

Sure, modifying existing spells is potentially powerful, but when creating a spell, don't you want to be able to do more than make "silent coldball?" i mean yes and no. i don't find the effects underwhelming, just poorly named.


It kinda blows my mind that people play at tables where a several thousand gold material component expenditure for Create Spell is not utterly prohibitive, or at least enough to give a typical wizard quite a bit of pause before deciding to make the rather limited possibilities presented by Modify Spell permanent. (A Simulacrum's components will set you back 1500gp!). to be fair, by the time you're fighting CR11+ creatures the DMG suggests almost a 75% chance that they have ~1000gp on them per creature with a full horde (likely an adventure rewarde) containing ~30k in just gold/platinum coins. with chances of even more in rare gems/art work + multiple magic items I get that not all tables play at high gp. but there's a reason that tier3+ adventurers have a reputation for being filthy rich.




So I went through some books (specifically DMG and Xanathar's) trying to find points of comparison so we can talk about opportunity costs. Since you get Create Spell at level 9, I'm assuming the wizard is looking to create a fifth-level spell, so 5000gp. I'm also assuming getting that in the form of an Arcane Focus isn't a huge hassle. Now, an alternative way a character might spend 5000g to empower themselves is to acquire magic items. Most of the guidance I'm seeing makes it look like that's roughly how much you can expect to spend on a rare-quality item (with the exception of XGTE buying rules, which price them at 2d10 x 1000gp; and the crafting rules in the same book, which involve a formula/recipe, an exotic material requiring a quest, some downtime, and 2000gp).

For a wizard, a rare magic item might look something like a +2 Arcane Grimoire, any Fizban's item with its first two abilities available (such as a Dragon-Touched Focus), some types of Ioun Stone (giving you something like surprise immunity or +1 AC), a Gem of Seeing, a Portable Hole, a Mantle of Spell Resistance... plenty of others, of course, no point in listing every one, but some of those are absolutely not worth selling just to buff one of your spells, IMO. On the other hand, if you have one you don't think you'll make good use of, then sure, feed it into the Create Spell grinder! Though maybe grab something for the party martials before you do that. They'll appreciate it.

So (and I don't intend this in a dismissive way), what usage of Create Spell do you think would make a better use of your gold than acquiring a magic item? well, as i think i implied in my original post, i haven't gone through comprehensively. and on top of that, i don't even have a comprehensive list of how the existing spells are being altered fro the new edition. my post was about theoretical problems (considering the shenanigans players come up with the already existing means to get around spell limitations).

however off the top of my head i can mention things like social manipulation spells no longer requiring components (i.e. silvery barbs, charm person, suggestion) removes a significant limiter in using them. depending on the campaign, even being able to remove the components from attack spells would allow you to cast the spell in public with no way for it to get traced back to you (cool ability on a bad guy in an intrigue game. not as good (from a game design perspective) for PC's in those same games.) adjusting range on spells so you can cast something that should be short range (and is balanced around that fact) at a longer range than current fireball could all be worthwhile.

its also important to note, that im not talking about low magic games where the wizard can be expect to get 3 magic items over the course of the campaign. its not uncommon in high magic games (particularly ones that use random loot tables) to end up with redundant magic items. or obsolete ones (i.e. you get a +! wand of the warmage at level 5 but then at level 10 a staff of fire drops.)

so the opportunity cost isn't just any magic item...it can end up being magic items that are redundant or obsolete.

another aspect to this is that more magic items is cool, but they're already theoretically balanced...ish. like..they have specific rules generally attached to them. they're finite. whereas the modify/create spell pairs aren't. it'd be nearly impossible to design every spell in such a way that its friendly to being altered. this is because the aspects that modify spell affects are already limitations on the spell.

but yeah, like i said, its all theoretical. i was more interested int eh discussion and seeing peoples opinions than saying 'this for sure will be a problem. REEEE' ya know?

[Psyren]

i mean yes and no. i don't find the effects underwhelming, just poorly named.

Yeah, what you're really doing is "Sign Modification" moreso than "Create Spell."



Wizards have been modifying spells as long as sorcerers have in 5th ed.
Evokers get careful spell (sculpt spell) and maximize spell (overchanell), enchanters get twin spell (split enchantment), scribe get Trasmute spell (Awakened Spellbook), diviner Portent to replicate seeking spell and heightened spell, ilusionist get maluable ilusion that is akin to the new twin spell (a non ilusionist has to cast the spell again to get the same result).
So no, i dont agree that it isnt a wizard theme in 5th ed. On the contrary, lots of subclasses give you the power to modify your spells, it just different from the sorcerer.

I definitely agree with this.

[Damon_Tor]

It kinda blows my mind that people play at tables where a several thousand gold material component expenditure for Create Spell is not utterly prohibitive, or at least enough to give a typical wizard quite a bit of pause before deciding to make the rather limited possibilities presented by Modify Spell permanent. (A Simulacrum's components will set you back 1500gp!).

The published adventure Dragon's Heist ends with a 50,000 gp payout when picking the most lawful ending: many parties without a lawful member will simply elect to keep the entire 500,000 gp treasure for themselves. The adventure is designed to go to 5th level.

In 5e, this isn't a problem. Because there's not that much that gets broken by the party having a ton of gold. So everyone gets platemail and nobody has to worry about being able to afford a resurrection again, no big deal.

But now we're being told that suddenly in 5.5 the amount of gold a party gets is a part of how the wizard (and only the wizard?) is balanced. How do we run this? How does a DM make a dragons hoard for an ancient dragon do justice to the beast that guards it if even a pirate's chest worth of coins will break the game?

[Psyren]

The published adventure Dragon's Heist ends with a 50,000 gp payout when picking the most lawful ending: many parties without a lawful member will simply elect to keep the entire 500,000 gp treasure for themselves. The adventure is designed to go to 5th level.

In 5e, this isn't a problem. Because there's not that much that gets broken by the party having a ton of gold. So everyone gets platemail and nobody has to worry about being able to afford a resurrection again, no big deal.

But now we're being told that suddenly in 5.5 the amount of gold a party gets is a part of how the wizard (and only the wizard?) is balanced. How do we run this? How does a DM make a dragons hoard for an ancient dragon do justice to the beast that guards it if even a pirate's chest worth of coins will break the game?

By not introducing expensive Arcane Foci? All the gold in the world won't matter if these items aren't available for sale.

[Rukelnikov]

By not introducing expensive Arcane Foci? All the gold in the world won't matter if these items aren't available for sale.

I don't think that makes much sense, if I commision a staff and pay 5k gp for it, its a 5k staff, unless no one in the world is willing to make me a staff for 5k gold, getting one shouldn't be too hard.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think that makes much sense, if I commision a staff and pay 5k gp for it, its a 5k staff, unless no one in the world is willing to make me a staff for 5k gold, getting one shouldn't be too hard.

If you need a staff of ivory worth 5,000 GP, but you get one at a 10% discount, does it still work?
If I have a diamond normally worth 10 GP, but sell it to the Cleric for 25,000 GP, can they use True Resurrection with it?

[Psyren]

I don't think that makes much sense, if I commision a staff and pay 5k gp for it, its a 5k staff, unless no one in the world is willing to make me a staff for 5k gold, getting one shouldn't be too hard.

Just because you pay someone 5000 gold to make you a staff, doesn't mean that staff is actually worth 5000. I could hand someone $10,000 for a bag of potato chips if I wanted to. The DM decides what materials, composition, craftsmanship etc would actually go into an item that could power the spell like that.


If you need a staff of ivory worth 5,000 GP, but you get one at a 10% discount, does it still work?
If I have a diamond normally worth 10 GP, but sell it to the Cleric for 25,000 GP, can they use True Resurrection with it?

Exactly.

[Rukelnikov]

If you need a staff of ivory worth 5,000 GP, but you get one at a 10% discount, does it still work?
If I have a diamond normally worth 10 GP, but sell it to the Cleric for 25,000 GP, can they use True Resurrection with it?


Just because you pay someone 5000 gold to make you a staff, doesn't mean that staff is actually worth 5000. I could hand someone $10,000 for a bag of potato chips if I wanted to. The DM decides what materials, composition, craftsmanship etc would actually go into an item that could power the spell like that.

Exactly.

What does it mean for a staff to be worth5k? Is there a cosmic price assigner? If I go to an auction and bid 5k for a staff is it worth 5k?

At some point you either accept they can get a 5k staff with their 50k gold, are accept that they don't really have 50k gold.

[Psyren]

What does it mean for a staff to be worth5k? Is there a cosmic price assigner? If I go to an auction and bid 5k for a staff is it worth 5k?

Yes, there is a cosmic price assigner - the DM. It's the same way that a diamond worth 25k isn't actually described in the rules anywhere, they determine whether that diamond you just found is worth 25k.


At some point you either accept they can get a 5k staff with their 50k gold, are accept that they don't really have 50k gold.

"I have 50k gold" and "I can buy things that aren't for sale in the world" are not the same thing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What does it mean for a staff to be worth5k? Is there a cosmic price assigner? If I go to an auction and bid 5k for a staff is it worth 5k?

At some point you either accept they can get a 5k staff with their 50k gold, are accept that they don't really have 50k gold.

The DM decides the value of any otherwise unspecified item, it's not as if this is a new concept, we already have existing spells like Hero's Feast or Clone that require specific material components with specific prices.

The DM also decides if such a thing is possible to just buy or if it needs to be found, commissioned, or otherwise earned. Keep in mind as well, features shouldn't exist in a vacuum, they've got worldbuilding implications. You're not the only Wizard in the world, others will covet these items. It's also entirely possible that someone sells it to you for a price its not actually worth, after all, the PHB does offer "estimate the value of a precious item" as an example of an intelligence check. For high ticket items like this, much like in real life, you might not always get what you pay for.

In the end its just something that will have to be worked out with the DM, whether that means you do simply end up purchasing the exact item or it becomes a quest in itself, both are reasonable. We've yet to see if any guidance further than that will be in the new PHB.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes, there is a cosmic price assigner - the DM. It's the same way that a diamond worth 25k isn't actually described in the rules anywhere, they determine whether that diamond you just found is worth 25k.

By the same token a 5k staff isn't described anywhere, so If i go to a high tier carpenter and pay him 5k for the best staff he can make, its a 5k staff.



"I have 50k gold" and "I can buy things that aren't for sale in the world" are not the same thing.

If I'm willing to buy a 5k staff and no one is willing to make me one, then my gp is worthless and I don't really have the wealth that's written in the sheet.


The DM decides the value of any otherwise unspecified item, it's not as if this is a new concept, we already have existing spells like Hero's Feast or Clone that require specific material components with specific prices.

The DM also decides if such a thing is possible to just buy or if it needs to be found, commissioned, or otherwise earned. Keep in mind as well, features shouldn't exist in a vacuum, they've got worldbuilding implications. You're not the only Wizard in the world, others will covet these items. It's also entirely possible that someone sells it to you for a price its not actually worth, after all, the PHB does offer "estimate the value of a precious item" as an example of an intelligence check. For high ticket items like this, much like in real life, you might not always get what you pay for.

In the end its just something that will have to be worked out with the DM, whether that means you do simply end up purchasing the exact item or it becomes a quest in itself, both are reasonable. We've yet to see if any guidance further than that will be in the new PHB.

The price of anything is arbitrary and assigned by the market based on offer and demand, how much peaople are willing to pay for something and how little the other party is willing to accept to part with a given item. If the rules said "An Ivory staff", then that's a different thing, because now Ivory can be scarce, but 5k is unspecified, so you just need to buy something expensive, or commision whomever is doing it to put more expensive materials inthe product to make it reach the 5k cost. If there are no materials in the world worth 5k, then as I said before you don't really have that gold.

The other angle you mention, the adventure doesn't happen in a vacuum, is true, it could be possible that the realm regulates any purchase of more than 1k gold, or staffs nd other foci are regulated, so creating one could be illegal or something, still, unless every kingdom has the same laws...

[OvisCaedo]

I mean, how hard could it be to embed gems into a staff, or find someone willing to do so?

but, yes, the simple gold values stated for all kind of bizarre specific material components are often very... nonsensible.

[Kane0]

The published adventure Dragon's Heist ends with a 50,000 gp payout when picking the most lawful ending: many parties without a lawful member will simply elect to keep the entire 500,000 gp treasure for themselves. The adventure is designed to go to 5th level.

In 5e, this isn't a problem. Because there's not that much that gets broken by the party having a ton of gold. So everyone gets platemail and nobody has to worry about being able to afford a resurrection again, no big deal.

But now we're being told that suddenly in 5.5 the amount of gold a party gets is a part of how the wizard (and only the wizard?) is balanced. How do we run this? How does a DM make a dragons hoard for an ancient dragon do justice to the beast that guards it if even a pirate's chest worth of coins will break the game?

Good example and well put. Maybe not break the game (in the same way as giving a level 10+ artificer a bunch of downtime), but definitely makes a significant impact.


If you need a staff of ivory worth 5,000 GP, but you get one at a 10% discount, does it still work?
If I have a diamond normally worth 10 GP, but sell it to the Cleric for 25,000 GP, can they use True Resurrection with it?
A problem that has been around for a few decades now, i'm not sure if we have a Mearls twitter response on this one?

[Psyren]

By the same token a 5k staff isn't described anywhere, so If i go to a high tier carpenter and pay him 5k for the best staff he can make, its a 5k staff.

Who is defined as a "high tier carpenter?" What is defined as "the best staff he can make?"


If I'm willing to buy a 5k staff and no one is willing to make me one, then my gp is worthless and I don't really have the wealth that's written in the sheet.

"I can't buy this one thing" = "the gold on my sheet is worthless!" is... a take I suppose.



A problem that has been around for a few decades now, i'm not sure if we have a Mearls twitter response on this one?

"Ask your DM" is my guess.

[ProsecutorGodot]

By the same token a 5k staff isn't described anywhere, so If i go to a high tier carpenter and pay him 5k for the best staff he can make, its a 5k staff.

He could do a terrible job, pocket your money and give you a carved piece of driftwood he was using as a soup spoon. The point being made here isn't that it's not possible to just outright purchase the material components, but that you're not just going to be guaranteed to do so freely.

This is confirming what I suspected would happen when they tied the class feature to a component rather than cost without offering any guidance on how available such components are, it's not a good balancing point if it can cause this sort of debate to happen at the table. I'll certainly be sharing feedback along the lines of "if the intention is not for the DM to have power of intervention here, make it a flat gold cost instead, even just "an amount of gold plus an arcane focus, both of which are consumed by the spell" would do. If the DM is definitely supposed to be able to intervene here based on the nature of the component, clarify that intention."

Though, while I'm looking at it, we can pretty reasonably determine a valid arcane focus for a few spell levels based on the weight of Platinum purely as a trade good, 1lb of Platinum is worth 500gp in trade. A platinum Rod can create a first level spell and a platinum Staff can create a second level spell. A platinum coin happens to be the exactly proportional in value and weight relative to a 1lb chunk of Platinum at 1/50 scale, so all you need is 100 platinum coins for a Rod, 200 for a Staff. Stick them together and boom, magic sticks of a definitive value.

[Theodoxus]

Well, the economy of D&D never made sense. Static prices aren't a thing in any kind of mercantile society. Some places are ripe with mineral wealth, others are barren, but might have something worth trading - food, salt, slaves... A bumper crop causes deflation in the area it's grown; shipping to a foreign land thus becomes more profitable than trying to sell it closer to home. Famine does the opposite.

How many DMs have economic degrees? Hell, how many game developers do? So we end up with artificially static economies that can't reliably handle a massive influx of gold. Adventurers returning with a dragon's hoard worth of goodies would normally destroy the economy of a hamlet or village. You'd buy all the real estate and then some, becoming the defacto rulers (or literal rulers depending on circumstance and ethical fortitude of the party).

So you end up with two options. A 500 gp diamond needed for restoring life to a dead character is exactly x size - say, 50 carats. And every carat is always 10 gp and there's nothing that will ever change that, regardless if there are 2 such diamonds in the world, or a hundred billion. 10 gp a carat. Or, the other option: a 500 gp diamond can range from a quarter carat to 500 carats or more, and is completely dependent on what someone is willing to pay for it.

The first works in a game. The second works in reality. We're playing a game, so static economies it is.

[WaroftheCrans]

Just because you pay someone 5000 gold to make you a staff, doesn't mean that staff is actually worth 5000. I could hand someone $10,000 for a bag of potato chips if I wanted to. The DM decides what materials, composition, craftsmanship etc would actually go into an item that could power the spell like that.



Exactly.

At what point does trying to assign real world economics and economic principles to D&D break the game? The instant you start trying to do it.

Back to fabricate: I have 5k gp, which I'll turn in for 500 pp, which I'll fabricate using jewelers tools into an arcane focus (orb) or (rod) worth 5k, which can't possibly be worth less, because the inherent materials are worth that much. And if a high level wizard, with arcana knowledge and the relevant proficiencies can't create an arcane focus using a spell, it's simply not possible, and the DM has in fact removed the feature entirely. Trying to screw over a player purchasing a reasonable non-magical item won't end well at any table.


"I can't buy this one thing" = "the gold on my sheet is worthless!" is... a take I suppose. If your gold is useless for purchasing any commodities you'd actually want to purchase, then yes, the gold on your sheet is worthless. I'll acknowledge the point if you can name 3 other things a high level adventurer can buy that they would want to buy for 5k gp.

[Razade]

So you end up with two options. A 500 gp diamond needed for restoring life to a dead character is exactly x size - say, 50 carats. And every carat is always 10 gp and there's nothing that will ever change that, regardless if there are 2 such diamonds in the world, or a hundred billion. 10 gp a carat. Or, the other option: a 500 gp diamond can range from a quarter carat to 500 carats or more, and is completely dependent on what someone is willing to pay for it.

The first works in a game. The second works in reality. We're playing a game, so static economies it is.

There's a third option. You need a diamond that's worth 500gp. It doesn't matter its caret size so we don't need to quantify that. What does it add?

[MoiMagnus]

Well, the economy of D&D never made sense. Static prices aren't a thing in any kind of mercantile society. Some places are ripe with mineral wealth, others are barren, but might have something worth trading - food, salt, slaves... A bumper crop causes deflation in the area it's grown; shipping to a foreign land thus becomes more profitable than trying to sell it closer to home. Famine does the opposite.

The only situation where fixed price are a thing is in a high magic universe where transmutation is common place.

In such a universe, you can determine "objective value" of object with respect to what they can be transmuted into.
(If I remember correctly, that was a thing in D&D4e where every magical object could be turned into some kind of "magical powder" proportionally to its price, that could then be used to craft magical objects)

Sure, the actual price you're paying might not be this "objective price", but in those high magic universe, in the worst case the price you're paying is "objective price + price of a professional transmuter".

And while this is not the case in D&D5e, you can worldbuild it as "it used to be the case during the collapse of golden age civilisations, and spell still make reference to those old prices even if nowadays the lack of transmuters means that it's not always easy to get objects for what they 'objectively' cost".

(Alternatively, if you want to go on the "subejctive cost" path, you just need to have a god/goddess that rule over magic and judge the price of the "offerings" to spells, and punish peoples trying to cheat the system by inflating/deflating prices)

[Xihirli]

What if, in your alteration of this rule, wizards could alter a spell with one of these buffs but every alteration would ADD a component?
That would limit which spells they could alter (none that already have 3), and how many times (maximum 2), and keep them from stepping on the sorcerers' toes.

This could also be a balancing mechanism between spells in the game, somewhat. Fireball has V, S, M so it can't be altered, but perhaps for 1d&d or in your home game Lightning Bolt doesn't have, say, M, so while it's just a worse fireball, you can increase its range.
There's not a lot of examples of this being helpful now because the spells are not balanced around this mechanism, but it COULD be if we're starting from scratch anyhow.

[Theodoxus]

There's a third option. You need a diamond that's worth 500gp. It doesn't matter its caret size so we don't need to quantify that. What does it add?

That doesn't work. Who decides the worth? The buyer? The seller? If it's just the DM, and you haggle the price, as noted above, does it no longer work as a 500 gp worth diamond because you bought it for 400?

If you go to a pawn shop and the owner doesn't realize the literal gem he has, and is selling a "500gp diamond" (whatever that means) for 10gp, is it a 10gp diamond, or a 500gp diamond? Or is it a Schrodinger's diamond and we won't actually know until we try to use it as a spell component that either succeeds... or doesn't.


The only situation where fixed price are a thing is in a high magic universe where transmutation is common place.


Wow, can I borrow your PHB that has fluctuating prices? That sounds amazing.

I guess that whole thread breakdown over a wizard buying a crossbow at 1st level could have been completely curtailed by "wait until the price of a light crossbow matches your current contents of your coin purse."

Who knew!

[Psyren]

If your gold is useless for purchasing any commodities you'd actually want to purchase, then yes, the gold on your sheet is worthless. I'll acknowledge the point if you can name 3 other things a high level adventurer can buy that they would want to buy for 5k gp.

If you view your gold as worthless if you can't buy one solitary item, that's an unreasonable expectation. Not every campaign has a Walmart or Amazon where you can get anything on demand.


Back to fabricate: I have 5k gp, which I'll turn in for 500 pp, which I'll fabricate using jewelers tools into an arcane focus (orb) or (rod) worth 5k, which can't possibly be worth less, because the inherent materials are worth that much.

You can absolutely fabricate a rod out of an expensive material like platinum. Or lead. Or stone. Or glass. Or bone. But it's the DM who decides whether the rod you just created qualifies as a suitable arcane focus or not. There is no rule that says "arcane foci can be made out of anything I feel like."

The point is that the concern here - that the player can snap their fingers and Create any number of spells without DM input as soon as they become wealthy - does not match up with reality.

[Joe the Rat]

They need to rename create spell. Creating spells is a thing, and a completely spearate process available (nominally) to any caster. It is a sink of time and resources, and can produce unique spells (or introduce "off-list" spells to the setting). Anything created this way could be scribed or learned by another caster if it fits on their acessible lists.

This is not really creating a spell. This is the ability to tweak a spell, then preserve that tweak as a new personal spell, at the cost of a 5th level slot, several thousand gold and a several hours of time (1 hr 21 min, plus 2 hours per spell level*), instead of weeks.
Forge Spell, Create Variant, Create Personal Spell, Signature Variant... something that spells out this isn't the only means to make new magics, and this version is only available to me**.

Also be sure any variant option is also a metamagic option. Even the ritual tag one. The reverse, however, does not need to be true.

As an aside, unbreakable concentration is actually better than the other option intended here - removing concentration. Unbreakable concentration at least still requires concentration.

* - or also spend a 1st and 4th level slot and save yourself 20 minutes of ritual time.
** - unless you or someone else does the spell research needed to make the variant a normal list spell, which can with DM adjudication (or fiat, if you prefer) change level, require more components, alter effect dice, etc. to fit guidelines.

[MisterD]

Could they not just create a spell crafting system?

[Theodoxus]

Could they not just create a spell crafting system?

Yes. Will they? I'd be shocked, pleasantly, but genuinely shocked.

[Psyren]

Could they not just create a spell crafting system?

They shouldn't, it never works out. Outright creating spells is as much art as science. Inevitably the system will either end up broken or useless, and thus not worth the ink/pages it's printed on.

[Damon_Tor]

"I have 50k gold" and "I can buy things that aren't for sale in the world" are not the same thing.

But how do you realistically do this? You're going to tell a PC with a relevant crafting skill they can't craft these items?

And if you're so upset about the Create Spell feature, why not just ban it? Seems a lot easier and less detrimental to the veracity of your game world than to say that no woodworker in all the land is willing to craft for you a staff or wand with the relevant value (and that, for some reason, you cannot do it yourself.)

[Damon_Tor]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Can I use Create Spell to make a Fabricate ritual?

Jesus Christ.

[Mastikator]

But how do you realistically do this? You're going to tell a PC with a relevant crafting skill they can't craft these items?

And if you're so upset about the Create Spell feature, why not just ban it? Seems a lot easier and less detrimental to the veracity of your game world than to say that no woodworker in all the land is willing to craft for you a staff or wand with the relevant value (and that, for some reason, you cannot do it yourself.)

Xanathar's has appropriate rules for this. You may need to go on a quest to find the appropriate item to buy/convert/craft/whatever. Crafting doesn't convert gold into equipment, crafting converts resources and items into equipment, but for that you need a crafting station and tools and resources. You can't transmute gold into a pair of leather boots, you buy leather and leatherworking tools and a place to work and that lets you make a pair of leather boots, all of this costs gold.

[stoutstien]

Could they not just create a spell crafting system?

They would need a coherent spell system first.

[Psyren]

But how do you realistically do this? You're going to tell a PC with a relevant crafting skill they can't craft these items?

Simply having a skill doesn't let you craft literally anything in the world. I might have tinker tool proficiency, that doesn't mean I can build a supercomputer.


And if you're so upset about the Create Spell feature, why not just ban it?

1) I'm not upset at all, not sure where you got that.

2) The point is to limit the number of created spells, not ban them entirely. The premise/concern raised earlier was that if I hand my PC 50k gold, they can make 50k worth of created spells, so I need to nickel and dime them because of this feature. That does not have to be the case. They might only get to Create three spells in the entire campaign regardless of the gold they have, because that's how many suitable arcane foci can be created with the materials I've made available, and you can't buy more than that for love nor money. The ability itself is not banned, it's merely controlled.

If WotC didn't want DMs controlling the ability, they would have simply said you need raw gold or incense or something else that doesn't have any room for adjudication. It would be pretty easy for them to do that, no?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Can I use Create Spell to make a Fabricate ritual?

Jesus Christ.

You can, but Fabricate had it's own issues with being used to create an arcane focus:

You also can't use it to create items that ordinarily require a high degree of craftsmanship, such as jewelry, weapons, glass, or armor, unless you have proficiency with the type of artisan's tools used to craft such objects.
If you had such proficiencies before, you probably didn't really need fabricate.

We can be reasonably confident that an arcane focus would fall under a high degree of craftsmanship because the blurb for arcane focus says they are a special type of item and that Staff in particular are "specially constructed".

So we're really back where we started here, where the DM can reasonably intervene.

[Theodoxus]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Can I use Create Spell to make a Fabricate ritual?

Jesus Christ.

Well of course, Wizards must need be more powerful than Forge Clerics, duh.

If Wizards can't be better at everything, than what's the point of them?

[Psyren]

You can, but Fabricate had it's own issues with being used to create an arcane focus:

If you had such proficiencies before, you probably didn't really need fabricate.

We can be reasonably confident that an arcane focus would fall under a high degree of craftsmanship because the blurb for arcane focus says they are a special type of item and that Staff in particular are "specially constructed".

So we're really back where we started here, where the DM can reasonably intervene.

A substantial degree of the so-called ultimate power that spellcasters have comes from people granting them abilities that the spells themselves actually don't.

[Boverk]

Well of course, Wizards must need be more powerful than Forge Clerics, duh.

If Wizards can't be better at everything, than what's the point of them?

They'd still require craftsmanship skills to make anything really fancy...but my dwarven wizard is turning every mountatin into multiple 10 ft tall statues of themself...but seriously, I wouldn't actually do this.

[Segev]

When you get to the point of there being no 5,000 gp arcane foci because the DM doesn't want you to be able to use create spell, the DM is better off banning or altering the spell/class feature than trying to pretend he's not doing so but, woops, there just is no possible way to get a valuable-enough arcane focus.

Considering that "a crystal" is a valid arcane focus, and gems are crystals, a 5,000 gp gem would do it. And if you can't find 5,000 gp gems, well, you're not getting resurrected, either.

Don't play games with whether you're banning something or not. Be up front with your players.

[Psyren]

Don't play games with whether you're banning something or not. Be up front with your players.

I'm not banning anything and I continue to reject your false dichotomy. "There are three of these special foci in the world, choose your created spells carefully" is not a ban; you still get to use the feature.

[JNAProductions]

I'll agree with Segev's general sentiment-Grod's Law and all that.

However, I also should note that Psyren doesn't seem to be advocating for violating it. If you tell the players up front "Simply having money won't let you purchase proper foci-getting a focus to modify your spell will be more along the lines of getting a magic item, requiring a quest or commission work or something like that, and it will be limited in availability," then they know that playing a Wizard at this table entails precisely that.

I will also say that Wizards of the Coast should absolutely provide guidance on how to best use these features.

[Psyren]

However, I also should note that Psyren doesn't seem to be advocating for violating it. If you tell the players up front "Simply having money won't let you purchase proper foci-getting a focus to modify your spell will be more along the lines of getting a magic item, requiring a quest or commission work or something like that, and it will be limited in availability," then they know that playing a Wizard at this table entails precisely that.

Indeed. And I have no problem including that caveat in session zero if a player wants to be a wizard.

It's entirely reasonable for players to not be able to create two dozen spell modifications just because they might have that much raw gold lying around.

[Theodoxus]

"Modification Permanence" is both my preferred name for 'Create Spell' and my new wave punk band.

[WaroftheCrans]

If you view your gold as worthless if you can't buy one solitary item, that's an unreasonable expectation. Not every campaign has a Walmart or Amazon where you can get anything on demand.

No, I'd view my gold as useless if I can't buy any items. It was in the sentence you quoted, and neither you nor I can come up with a use for that gold in a game where such things are denied.

You can absolutely fabricate a rod out of an expensive material like platinum. Or lead. Or stone. Or glass. Or bone. But it's the DM who decides whether the rod you just created qualifies as a suitable arcane focus or not. There is no rule that says "arcane foci can be made out of anything I feel like."

The point is that the concern here - that the player can snap their fingers and Create any number of spells without DM input as soon as they become wealthy - does not match up with reality.


RE: the wizard has a high level of mastery with magic, is one of the most proficient people with arcana on earth if not in a very high magic setting, (and if so, such focii should have a clear market) has proficiency with the relevant tool (and if not jeweler's tool, what tools would you say?), and has a magical means of creating it, can't create a non magical item, who can? Arcane foci are able to be made for 10gp and are incredibly abundant, increasing the value of the materials would increase the value of the focus.
So who can make a spellcasting focus? I'd like to know who you would say.

Spellcasting focus
10 gp, 2 lb.
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus.


Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Can I use Create Spell to make a Fabricate ritual?

Jesus Christ.

Yep, actually one of the reasons that spell specifically was on my mind. A sufficiently motivated wizard can take a day to make at least 5k gold without using any slots by going into a forest and making spyglasses or ballista, or some other similarly expensive item. Sell them at half cost, abiding by the rules, and then fabricate yourself a focus. Yes, the DM can say that no one will wish to buy any items the pc wants to sell, but there are explicit rules on selling items. If it's a trade good or jewelry, you could sell at full price RAW.

The more barriers that go up via "The DM says so", the less coherent this looks.

And I'm assuming a wizard is capable of using, say, one of the printed spells that grants proficiency, to grant himself proficiency if he doesn't already have proficiency from background or race.

[Psyren]

No, I'd view my gold as useless if I can't buy any items. It was in the sentence you quoted, and neither you nor I can come up with a use for that gold in a game where such things are denied.

"Dad, can I have some ice cream? It says here a cone is only $1."
"Sure, how much ice cream did you want?"
"I want 40 cones! We can afford that!"
"Even though we can afford that, 40 cones is too much ice cream."
"WHY ARE YOU BANNING ICE CREAM? MONEY IS USELESS!"

[Theodoxus]

"Dad, can I have some ice cream? It says here a cone is only $1."
"Sure, how much ice cream did you want?"
"I want 40 cones! We can afford that!"
"Even though we can afford that, 40 cones is too much ice cream."
"WHY ARE YOU BANNING ICE CREAM? MONEY IS USELESS!"

That's not exactly what's going on...

It's more

Exa Musk: "Dad, I'd like a Maserati for $1,000,000!
Elon Musk: "Sure, how many do you want?"
Exa: "I want 40 of them! We can afford that!"
Elon: "Even though we can afford that, 40 cars is too many for you."
Exa: "But we don't have anything else to spend our money on! Why are you banning Masarati's?!? Money is useless!"

When you have essentially all the money in the world, as high level PCs tend to - functionally, anyway, it's the same as here on earth. Yes, being a multibillionaire still means you need to spend money on food and housing and whatnot - just like PCs do, but there's literally nothing that will actually negatively affect your bank account outside of some serious financial trouble - which, I've never seen in a game of D&D - YMMV.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's not exactly what's going on...

It's more

Exa Musk: "Dad, I'd like a Maserati for $1,000,000!
Elon Musk: "Sure, how many do you want?"
Exa: "I want 40 of them! We can afford that!"
Elon: "Even though we can afford that, 40 cars is too many for you."
Exa: "But we don't have anything else to spend our money on! Why are you banning Masarati's?!? Money is useless!"

When you have essentially all the money in the world, as high level PCs tend to - functionally, anyway, it's the same as here on earth. Yes, being a multibillionaire still means you need to spend money on food and housing and whatnot - just like PCs do, but there's literally nothing that will actually negatively affect your bank account outside of some serious financial trouble - which, I've never seen in a game of D&D - YMMV.

The big difference in my mind is that no matter what analogy we use, only the wizard really has something mechanically beneficial to spend such large sums of money on.

It circles back around to "we've identified having an excess of wealth as an issue based on player feedback so we've given the wizard a way to spend the parties wealth for them."

[Hurrashane]

The big difference in my mind is that no matter what analogy we use, only the wizard really has something mechanically beneficial to spend such large sums of money on.

It circles back around to "we've identified having an excess of wealth as an issue based on player feedback so we've given the wizard a way to spend the parties wealth for them."

Aren't they going to have like a Bastion system in One D&D so people can sink their hard earned gold into an awesome home base for themselves? So the party wizard will likely need to choose between having a cool part of the base or creating a spell.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how cool and/or useful this bastion system is to know if it's a fair or reasonable tradeoff.

[Psyren]

That's not exactly what's going on...

It's more

Exa Musk: "Dad, I'd like a Maserati for $1,000,000!
Elon Musk: "Sure, how many do you want?"
Exa: "I want 40 of them! We can afford that!"
Elon: "Even though we can afford that, 40 cars is too many for you."
Exa: "But we don't have anything else to spend our money on! Why are you banning Masarati's?!? Money is useless!"

Bold won't be true in the new DMG, there will be entire Downtime rules and magic items. So the gold won't simply be a variable incrementing steadily higher on the sheet just because it can't be used to turn the wizard's entire spellbook into NexusMods.

Ninja'd by Hurrashane

[Theodoxus]

Aren't they going to have like a Bastion system in One D&D so people can sink their hard earned gold into an awesome home base for themselves? So the party wizard will likely need to choose between having a cool part of the base or creating a spell.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how cool and/or useful this bastion system is to know if it's a fair or reasonable tradeoff.


Bold won't be true in the new DMG, there will be entire Downtime rules and magic items. So the gold won't simply be a variable incrementing steadily higher on the sheet just because it can't be used to turn the wizard's entire spellbook into NexusMods.

Ninja'd by Hurrashane

Exactly, we'll see. We were promised all kinds of bells and whistles and togs and switches in the 2014 DMG that would allow DMs to basically run everything as simple as the Champion or as complex as everything is a full caster; we got some different resting rules, skill tests, and spell points.

They've been promising 'backward compatibility', I don't see it personally.

Your apparent faith in things unseen is quite strong. I'm more 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt; fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, we won't get fooled again.'

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly, we'll see. We were promised all kinds of bells and whistles and togs and switches in the 2014 DMG that would allow DMs to basically run everything as simple as the Champion or as complex as everything is a full caster; we got some different resting rules, skill tests, and spell points.

They've been promising 'backward compatibility', I don't see it personally.

Your apparent faith in things unseen is quite strong. I'm more 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt; fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, we won't get fooled again.'

Exactly. They've made lots of grand promises and their implementation has been...well...lacking. Since the beginning.

[Psyren]

Exactly, we'll see. We were promised all kinds of bells and whistles and togs and switches in the 2014 DMG that would allow DMs to basically run everything as simple as the Champion or as complex as everything is a full caster; we got some different resting rules, skill tests, and spell points.

They've been promising 'backward compatibility', I don't see it personally.

Your apparent faith in things unseen is quite strong. I'm more 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt; fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, we won't get fooled again.'

My faith is not blind or based on things unseen. For the most part they're making the game I want them to make; that won't be true for all of you and that's okay. It'd be a pretty boring forum if we all agreed on everything.

[Hurrashane]

Exactly, we'll see. We were promised all kinds of bells and whistles and togs and switches in the 2014 DMG that would allow DMs to basically run everything as simple as the Champion or as complex as everything is a full caster; we got some different resting rules, skill tests, and spell points.

They've been promising 'backward compatibility', I don't see it personally.

Your apparent faith in things unseen is quite strong. I'm more 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt; fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, we won't get fooled again.'

I don't see how a response of "We'll see if it's worth it" is having faith, strong or otherwise.

I didn't follow the D&D next playtest, so I can't comment on what things were promised and how they delivered on it. I do know they mentioned that the 2014 DMG was a bit of a rush job and they plan to do better this time. And I do know that 5e has been the most enjoyable version of D&D I've played to date, problems and all. For me One D&D is shaping up to be pretty good, at least on paper as I don't have the time to actually playtest the material. The first passes of each thing have been for the most part pretty good, and I can't wait to see the revised versions of the new material.

The backwards compatibility is at least with 5e adventures, so far. But I expect MotM and recent releases will be backwards compatible, though if they are the beyond versions will probably get errata to update at least the subclasses to the new way if needed.

[Razade]

That doesn't work. Who decides the worth? The buyer? The seller? If it's just the DM, and you haggle the price, as noted above, does it no longer work as a 500 gp worth diamond because you bought it for 400?

If you go to a pawn shop and the owner doesn't realize the literal gem he has, and is selling a "500gp diamond" (whatever that means) for 10gp, is it a 10gp diamond, or a 500gp diamond? Or is it a Schrodinger's diamond and we won't actually know until we try to use it as a spell component that either succeeds... or doesn't.


The book. The book determines the worth. Why get to any kind of level of abstraction like this? What does it add? We all agree that D&D can't simulate an economy and even if it could, almost no GM is going to have the skills to keep that simulation realistic or sensible. The book says it's a diamond and it's worth 500 gold. That's all it needs to do, and that's all you need it to do. That's what treasure tables and loot tables are for. That's what store tables are for. The diamond doesn't matter. The diamond isn't real. It's just an abstraction of player wealth. Mark the 500 gold off your character sheet and call it a day.

[WaroftheCrans]

"Dad, can I have some ice cream? It says here a cone is only $1."
"Sure, how much ice cream did you want?"
"I want 40 cones! We can afford that!"
"Even though we can afford that, 40 cones is too much ice cream."
"WHY ARE YOU BANNING ICE CREAM? MONEY IS USELESS!"

You keep on moving the goalposts and now you're using a strawman. I'm also not going to rely on rules as yet unseen. Even if they put forth the rules for a big keep or bastion, for most adventurers a place where you hang around and do nothing isn't very worthwhile.

It's one thing if you say that you or your players won't have an issue with it. However, it's certainly not "totally in the hands of the DM," as you've claimed for many pages. You've also failed to address the main parts of anything I put forward. What it comes down to is that you like to exercise DM fiat, which is fine. What's not fine is saying that DM fiat to limit a class feature is good across the board.

When there's no reason that certain things wouldn't work, it's not adjudication, it's fiat btw.

Edit: 40 icecream cones (or 1000 flasks of oil, or caltrops or other cheap adventuring gear), is just about the only thing current adventurers can buy once they're past plate, if they're incapable of buying expensive components.

[kazaryu]

Something that i've not seen mentioned in the context of 'what constitutes a 5k staff'. you can't just use any staff as an arcane focus. you can go out in the woods and whittle a long branch into a walking stick, or a short one into a wand shaped thing all you want. Those won't be arcane foci (and i mean per the rules). arcane foci are specifically designed to be able to channel magic. so sure...you can turn 500 platinum into a rod of plantinum...but (per the rules) you won't be able to use that platinum rod to cast unless it underfoes whatever special process it needs in order to be able to channel magic.

the only thing (currently) in the books that we can say for sure are arcane foci worth that amount are magic items. Its not just about having a super fancy staff that is made out of the purest jade carved from the long dead corpse of some ancient crystal wyrm. although theoretically that could suffice as well. But if you choose to add a magic item shop with a significant inventory...then you're opening the door for direct conversion of gold->upgraded spells. possibly broken spells. (again, i want to reiterate, until someone really goes through and tries to make some truly broken spell combinations with this system, and until we know how all the spells are being changed, all of this is still hypothetical.(



Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.

Can I use Create Spell to make a Fabricate ritual?

Jesus Christ.

you can...that...well thats certainly a thing. oof.

[Rafaelfras]

In my table I have implemented the Xanathar guide rules for finding and buying magic itens as soon as I got the book. It was a very good gold sink. I know some tables dont want many magic items, but it gave my party something to spent their money on. We are on FR so it makes sense that you can buy magic items in big cities.
All in all though I dont think create spell is a problem because nothing you can achieve with it is stronger than what mages can already do. Is silent cold ball stronger than fireball? Yes, kind of? Its still 8d6 damage. Is that hold person holding up even if you got attacked stronger? Yes but holding the person in the first place is what you got, and most of the time you would held it anyway just because you mad your saving throw. Not afecting your allies? Yeah evokers are doing that forever. Ritual control the weather? It comes at level 15, will really break a campaign? The effect itself was already there, the players now will use it more often (and so will enemies).
Its a lot of time/ gold/ spell slots to do that for every single spell, I truly believe that you dont have to go out of your way to deny a player the material component (I know in my table I would just deduce the gold from the player and wound not even bother). Instead just put more time constraints and be done with it. I takes a day and a 5th level slot a 4th level slot a 1st level slot. For me this is too much even at 13rd level if there are threats or better uses of my time and magic. At level 17 now as we got a lot of free time before things heat up again I would have time to create all I want. But i am level 17, I have wish, nothing I do with create spell will surpass that (Wish without V component ha!).
If I had it at 9 would i do that? No, we where at the middle of Princes of apocalypse, After its end? No, I spent all my gold in a robe of stars when we switched places and I got to play "against giants " for the beginning of STK. I would be able to create some spells after that.
So it may be anecdotal but in my experience I dont see this spell as problematic, a good balanced campaign will hold any overuse and even that will not break a game

[Joe the Rat]

One cludge solution is to just say X,000 worth of arcane foci. But I do find the picture of a would-be spell-chopper accumulating 100 orbs to scribe Acid Shatter or Ruth's Aganazzar's Scorcher But As a Pelvic Thrust it's own amusement.

[Aimeryan]

Has anyone discussed using Wish to cast Create Spell for free?

[Mastikator]

Has anyone discussed using Wish to cast Create Spell for free?

Create spell requires that you then cast scribe spell, which requires that you have a wizard's spellbook, which then creates a wizard spell and not a arcane spell. I suppose a sorcerer can cast both spells blowing their 5th and 9nth spell slot to create a spell for a wizard. Funnily there's no stress due to it being used to replicate spells. But the sorcerer can only create a spell from their own known spells, so it is a way to add altered spells to their buddy's spell book. But hardly breaking the game IMO

[Psyren]

You keep on moving the goalposts and now you're using a strawman. I'm also not going to rely on rules as yet unseen. Even if they put forth the rules for a big keep or bastion, for most adventurers a place where you hang around and do nothing isn't very worthwhile.

It's one thing if you say that you or your players won't have an issue with it. However, it's certainly not "totally in the hands of the DM," as you've claimed for many pages. You've also failed to address the main parts of anything I put forward. What it comes down to is that you like to exercise DM fiat, which is fine. What's not fine is saying that DM fiat to limit a class feature is good across the board.

When there's no reason that certain things wouldn't work, it's not adjudication, it's fiat btw.

Edit: 40 icecream cones (or 1000 flasks of oil, or caltrops or other cheap adventuring gear), is just about the only thing current adventurers can buy once they're past plate, if they're incapable of buying expensive components.

1) There is a reason, and you have yet to counter that reason. Please point to me in the book where it provides the statistics of an expensive arcane focus, I'll wait for you to do so.

2) If that's really the case at your tables, maybe you shouldn't be drowning your players in useless money then?

[Aimeryan]

Create spell requires that you then cast scribe spell, which requires that you have a wizard's spellbook, which then creates a wizard spell and not a arcane spell. I suppose a sorcerer can cast both spells blowing their 5th and 9nth spell slot to create a spell for a wizard. Funnily there's no stress due to it being used to replicate spells. But the sorcerer can only create a spell from their own known spells, so it is a way to add altered spells to their buddy's spell book. But hardly breaking the game IMO

Is Wish now Sorcerer only?

[Boverk]

Has anyone discussed using Wish to cast Create Spell for free?

I'm not sure if you can. Create Spell is cast as a reaction in response to casting the modify spell, and wish is an action to cast.

[Aimeryan]

I'm not sure if you can. Create Spell is cast as a reaction in response to casting the modify spell, and wish is an action to cast.

Casting time for the duplicate Spell is not important to Wish

[Hurrashane]

Casting time for the duplicate Spell is not important to Wish

I think what they mean is that you'd need to take an action to cast wish to then get the reaction spell Create Spell, Create Spell needs to be cast immediately following Modify spell to work. So you'd be casting it 6 seconds too late.

[Aimeryan]

I think what they mean is that you'd need to take an action to cast wish to then get the reaction spell Create Spell, Create Spell needs to be cast immediately following Modify spell to work. So you'd be casting it 6 seconds too late.

No, the casting time of Create Spell is a reaction, which you may take after casting Modify Spell. The Spell itself sets no restriction on needing to be within X amount of time of casting Modify Spell - you just wouldn't be able to cast it because of the casting time.

Wish doesn't cast Create Spell - it duplicates the effects as if it had. Thereby, like for any Spell, Wish doesn't need to interact with the duplicated Spell's casting time.

[Boverk]

Casting time for the duplicate Spell is not important to Wish

I'd probably allow it, because it's wish...but I think the issue is more that Create Spell needs to happen immediately after you cast Modify Spell as a reaction to it being cast.

RAW, the wish spell would be cast 6 seconds later and the window to cast create spell will have passed.

I'd probably change the wording of create spell to be able to be used on a spell you currently have modified.

Maybe you modified it in the morning, took it for a test drive, decided it was a keeper and chose to polish it and scribe it.

[Aimeryan]

I'd probably allow it, because it's wish...but I think the issue is more that Create Spell needs to happen immediately after you cast Modify Spell as a reaction to it being cast.

RAW, the wish spell would be cast 6 seconds later and the window to cast create spell will have passed.

I'd probably change the wording of create spell to be able to be used on a spell you currently have modified.

Maybe you modified it in the morning, took it for a test drive, decided it was a keeper and chose to polish it and scribe it.

1. You aren't casting Create Spell.
2. That is not actually what the Spell says. The casting block has that stipulation, not the effect.
3. You aren't casting Create Spell. You are casting Wish, which doesn't have that casting stipulation.

For reference, this is the effect of the Create Spell Spell:


Synthesizing your arcane knowledge and power,
you strive to create a new spell. To succeed, you
must concentrate for 1 hour and meditate on the
spell you just altered with Modify Spell,
otherwise this spell fails. If you succeed, you
must start casting Scribe Spell within the next 10
minutes and add the altered spell to your
spellbook. Once the spell is in your spellbook, it
becomes one of your known spells, it gains the
Wizard source tag rather than the Arcane tag,
and it gains a name of your choice.


For reference, this is one of the effects of the Wish Spell:


The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.

[Theodoxus]

For reference, this is one of the effects of the Wish Spell:
The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.



Sounds like it'd be easier to cast Scribe Spell with wish. No time requirements, technically no Modify Spell requirements. Just "I wish to cast Scribe Spell to add 'Ruth's Aganazzar's Scorcher But As a Pelvic Thrust to my spellbook'"


RAW, it should work. RAI... I'm not so sure. I'd allow it, using wish to cast a 1st level spell, even it if's to create a modified 2nd level spell, is pretty tame.


1) There is a reason, and you have yet to counter that reason. Please point to me in the book where it provides the statistics of an expensive arcane focus, I'll wait for you to do so.

Wait, which book? 2014 PHB? that makes no sense, since the necessary item didn't exist then. The 2024 book? That doesn't exist yet (I still content you're a time traveler). The UA? Have we gotten a UA with equipment yet that isn't just weapons?

See, you make these blanket statements and then think they're gotchas. But we have no idea yet what WotC is planning. It's very possible (though given their track record, not guaranteed) that the 2024 book WILL contain arcane focuses in varying gold piece values. Just because they put the cart before the horse doesn't mean they won't exist sometime in the near future for our edification and review.

[Boverk]

Sounds like it'd be easier to cast Scribe Spell with wish. No time requirements, technically no Modify Spell requirements. Just "I wish to cast Scribe Spell to add 'Ruth's Aganazzar's Scorcher But As a Pelvic Thrust to my spellbook'"


RAW, it should work. RAI... I'm not so sure. I'd allow it, using wish to cast a 1st level spell, even it if's to create a modified 2nd level spell, is pretty tame.

I apologize if I'm being a little too repetitive/pedantic, but wouldn't this be replicating two(or 3) spells?

Modifying, creating, and scribing all in one swoop which would force this into the part of wish that incurs penalties, right?

[Boverk]

Also, with regards to price standardization across the realms, the way I've always thought about it was that there was a god of commerce who standardizes costs and keeps a tight handle on inflation.

This diamond is worth 5k because the Divine Patron of Commerce says so.

As someone mentioned before, a complex economy with localized prices is just too much for the game system.

[Theodoxus]

Maybe? It depends currently on the DMs ruling of what 'Requirements' mean and how inclusive it is. It's possible, with sufficient feedback, WotC will address it and make a rule around it. I would be fine playing in a game with a DM that came to your conclusion.

[WaroftheCrans]

1) There is a reason, and you have yet to counter that reason. Please point to me in the book where it provides the statistics of an expensive arcane focus, I'll wait for you to do so.

2) If that's really the case at your tables, maybe you shouldn't be drowning your players in useless money then?

1) You might want to look at your signature. There are also no statistics for any expensive/somewhat unique spell components that I know of, yet I've never seen anyone raise the point that if you want powdered diamonds you have to find a very special way of powdering diamonds, which will only be accessible once per campaign, or that there is no possible way to carve a figurine of yourself for contingency. It would be moronic to do so, so people don't. You're calling forth an exception for this one thing. Also, you never asked for statistics of an expensive arcane focus, so why would I provide that?

An Arcane Focus is adventuring gear, basic, non-magical adventuring gear. There's no "statistics" in the rules for more expensive versions of any weapons, art or adventuring gear, however assorted versions of them exist scattered across random encounters and tables in adventures and books. By and large, these items are just more finely crafted bejeweled versions of their base versions, some of them just having a gem added to the hilt or something similar. A reasonable assumption that would fit with the text is that more expensive versions of other adventuring gear could be created in the same way.

You've also yet to address a single one of my points, and instead (intentionally or not) used a strawman and a false analogy, to tarnish a point not even related to the arcane focus. If an argument hinges on a gotcha, it's not a very good argument.

2) I allow my players to buy things, such as magic items, or any spell components they need. I never indicated I didn't. You outright stated you didn't. This discussion also isn't supposed to be a critique of my specific table or your table, but rather tables in general. Most adventures have a very large amount of treasure. Most tables therefore have a very large amount of treasure. There are rules provided for buying items, so presumably most tables they would be able to buy a 3000 gp focus.


Btw, there exists a 7500 gp platinum staff. If fabricate can only be used to make things explicitly in the rules, you can fabricate that staff, and then get a lvl 2 artificer to infuse it, just in case the DM decides, against all reason, that arcane focuses are impossible to create, despite them being extremely easy to purchase. There's probably some gotcha to this one too, but I believe I've made my point.

Edit: sorta ninja'd by theodoxus, my points are largely in line with what he's saying there.

[Rukelnikov]

You know, thinking about it, in every edition Wish has had a negative attached in order to justify its power, and I think 5e's chance of never being able to cast it again is the worst of them.

2e had you age 5 years, a mechanic shared by other powerful spells such as Haste aging you 1 year, in the case of Haste I think it was too strong a negative for what is a small impact spell (only the battle in question), in the case of Wish it was ok and thematic, sacrificing your life force for the effect. You'd never lose the chance to cast the spell, but the clock kept ticking, its cost increases every time you cast it as you approach the end of your lifespan.

3e had a 5k XP cost, it was really expensive as soon as you got it at 17 cause that could have been used to craft a 125k gp item (of course, you'd also need half that gold but an item is a semi permanent upgrade), but even then saw play cause its effect is very strong. Having played mutiple times into the epics, including 2 casters to 24 and 28, using wish was noticeable in your level in relation to the rest of the party, 3e's XP system made it so you'd get a bit more xp if you were behind the rest of the party in level, so you tended to float about a level behind the others. And while this XP cost became increasingly cheaper, since 5k XP represents "less" from you what you need in order to level up than the previous one, and you are getting more XP since you are fighting higher CR creatures, the stuff you can reliably do at those levels is often better than the stuff you can reliably do with Wish, so it fall back to mostly a get out of jail card, and an expensive one at that. Plus the fact that with 3e's unending staircase of magic item progression, you could have destined that XP to craft your next cool toy. As a mitigation factor, I think burning XP was the best.

5e has the strain part, which alone doesn't feel limitating enough thus making Wish too cheap, and it has the 33% chance of not being able to use it again, thus making wish unfun, because then I may not be able to cast it again, if it had been you cant use this for one year, it would have been ok. Still, I feel the way it interacted with the system in 3e made it much more interesing at evaluating the cost vs the effect, while 5e reduces it to, do I wanna use my maybe only casting of this spell on this?

[Psyren]

1) You might want to look at your signature. There are also no statistics for any expensive/somewhat unique spell components that I know of, yet I've never seen anyone raise the point that if you want powdered diamonds you have to find a very special way of powdering diamonds, which will only be accessible once per campaign, or that there is no possible way to carve a figurine of yourself for contingency. It would be moronic to do so, so people don't. You're calling forth an exception for this one thing. Also, you never asked for statistics of an expensive arcane focus, so why would I provide that?

I take it you haven't found it then? If you do, let me know, otherwise I consider the matter settled.

The whole point of this tangent was the mistaken belief that a player who achieves this ability can run roughshod over the campaign. Since you haven't found stats for such an item, it's up to the DM to provide one regardless of how much money the players have, therefore they maintain control as intended. If WotC didn't want that, they would have simply made it cost it gold without the intermediary arcane focus step.



You outright stated you didn't.

No, I outright stated that I would allow a limited number of these per campaign. Limited is not zero, limited is limited.



Wait, which book? 2014 PHB? that makes no sense, since the necessary item didn't exist then. The 2024 book? That doesn't exist yet (I still content you're a time traveler). The UA? Have we gotten a UA with equipment yet that isn't just weapons?

See, you make these blanket statements and then think they're gotchas. But we have no idea yet what WotC is planning. It's very possible (though given their track record, not guaranteed) that the 2024 book WILL contain arcane focuses in varying gold piece values. Just because they put the cart before the horse doesn't mean they won't exist sometime in the near future for our edification and review.[/FONT]

Yes, the 2014 PHB. This is literally the second sentence in the UA packet:

"The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted."

You're supposed to use the existing rules wherever they have not been updated, in order to playtest. There is no rule for arcane focus costing in the UA, therefore we can only go by the PHB.

[WaroftheCrans]

I take it you haven't found it then? If you do, let me know, otherwise I consider the matter settled.

The whole point of this tangent was the mistaken belief that a player who achieves this ability can run roughshod over the campaign. Since you haven't found stats for such an item, it's up to the DM to provide one regardless of how much money the players have, therefore they maintain control as intended. If WotC didn't want that, they would have simply made it cost it gold without the intermediary arcane focus step.



No, I outright stated that I would allow a limited number of these per campaign. Limited is not zero, limited is limited.

You outright stated you wouldn't allow players to buy them, yes, that is what I said. Don't try to twist my words to say things that they don't say.

You also ignored every point in my post, choosing to cherrypick a half sentence out of context, and to look at the first half of my first paragraph. Previously you baselessly attacked how I run things at my table, while ignoring every point in my post. Previously you characterized my argument as that of a petulant child, while ignoring every point in my post. Previously you portrayed one sentence of mine as unreasonable, after adding assumptions to that post that didn't exist. You addressed one point via a gotcha, which wasn't particularly compelling.

You have absolute confidence the unreleased PHB and DMG will solve the problems you claim it will, but there's no possibility it mentions any basic things referenced by someone you disagree with, if not already printed. So how can someone engage with you? Is it possible to do so in any way that isn't agreement?

Edit:

By not introducing expensive Arcane Foci? All the gold in the world won't matter if these items aren't available for sale.

"I have 50k gold" and "I can buy things that aren't for sale in the world" are not the same thing.

[Psyren]

You outright stated you wouldn't allow players to buy them, yes, that is what I said.

I said I wouldn't allow Amazon or Walmart in my games. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?656076-New-UA-what-is-up-with-wizards/page5&p=25771077#post25771077) Getting access to a few of these items, preferably through a quest of some kind, is still buying them. My very first post in the thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?656076-New-UA-what-is-up-with-wizards&p=25767529&viewfull=1#post25767529) set a rough ballpark of no more than 3.


You also ignored every point in my post, choosing to cherrypick a half sentence out of context, and to look at the first half of my first paragraph. Previously you baselessly attacked how I run things at my table, while ignoring every point in my post. Previously you characterized my argument as that of a petulant child, while ignoring every point in my post. Previously you portrayed one sentence of mine as unreasonable, after adding assumptions to that post that didn't exist. You addressed one point via a gotcha, which wasn't particularly compelling.

You have absolute confidence the unreleased PHB and DMG will solve the problems you claim it will, but there's no possibility it mentions any basic things referenced by someone you disagree with, if not already printed. So how can someone engage with you? Is it possible to do so in any way that isn't agreement?

If you see no difference between the availability of powdered diamonds and that of a specially constructed item designed to channel the power of arcane spells, then we probably won't agree, no.

And my confidence in the DMG is not actually relevant; by the current PHB rules - the ones we're supposed to be using, as a reminder - the availability of these items is entirely dependent on the DM.

EDIT: Thanks for providing my quotes, which both say clearly "if these items aren't available for sale" - not "I, Psyren, will not make these items available for sale."

[WaroftheCrans]

Getting access to a few of these items, preferably through a quest of some kind, is still buying them.
No, in plain english, getting access through a quest isn't buying something. An item not for sale, isn't able to be bought.


If you see no difference between the availability of powdered diamonds and that of a specially constructed item designed to channel the power of arcane spells, then we probably won't agree, no.
What about the contingency figurine? And no, I do not see the difference between one reductive argument about lack of statistics and another reductive argument about lack of statistics. If your argument is equally valid for something that you think is absurd, it might be time to reconsider the argument.


And my confidence in the DMG is not actually relevant; by the current PHB rules - the ones we're supposed to be using, as a reminder - the availability of these items is entirely dependent on the DM.
What you're saying is DM fiat, not adjudication.

[Psyren]

No, in plain english, getting access through a quest isn't buying something. An item not for sale, isn't able to be bought.

So if the only way to reach the Grand Bazaar in the City of Brass is a quest, nothing you can purchase there counts as being bought?



What about the contingency figurine? And no, I do not see the difference between one reductive argument about lack of statistics and another reductive argument about lack of statistics. If your argument is equally valid for something that you think is absurd, it might be time to reconsider the argument.

I never said restricting access to powdered diamonds is absurd. The DM is well within their rights to do both, that's part of their job.

[WaroftheCrans]

So if the only way to reach the Grand Bazaar in the City of Brass is a quest, nothing you can purchase there counts as being bought?



I never said restricting access to powdered diamonds is absurd. The DM is well within their rights to do both, that's part of their job.

At this point you're well outside the realms of plain english, and still not responding to anything I say that can't be nominally met with a "gotcha".

I'll agree with you on one thing, I do think the matter is settled.

I don't think any reasonable DM, without exercising express fiat (which is ok, so long as it is express fiat), can meaningfully restrict access from a clever wizard. Flying in the face of logic, and jumping through about 15 hoops to express why something doesn't work, despite it being logically implied, is unreasonable.
If a reasonable dm can't meaningfully restrict access past gold, then it is balanced poorly, and prone to the problems you say it isn't.

[Psyren]

What you consider reasonable and what I consider reasonable clearly diverge then. The good news is we'll never have to play together, so I'll leave it there.

[kazaryu]

The whole point of this tangent was the mistaken belief that a player who achieves this ability can run roughshod over the campaign. that was not, in fact, the belief presented. i presented the possibility that this ability further exacerbates some groups existing issues with how versatile and powerful late game wizards are. and that its possible that this ability can lead to even more broken shenannigans (at a white room level) on par with existing BS like simulacrum chaining. I appreciate your responses to the questions i posed. but you seem to have (at some point) strayed away from the original question.


Since you haven't found stats for such an item, it's up to the DM to provide one regardless of how much money the players have, therefore they maintain control as intended. If WotC didn't want that, they would have simply made it cost it gold without the intermediary arcane focus step.



such stats have already been stated, you didn't need for someone else to provide them. you seem to insist that these arcane foci would need to be just regular focuses...except expensive. that is simply not the case. Magic items easily fall within the allowable limits. and more and more, over time, the system has moved toward assuming that the party is capable of purchasing magical items. not necessarily directly, but still able to trade gold for them.

Further, the specific groups that were being discussed were the ones that prefer to be relatively free with their magic items (which would typically benefit marshals more than casters, as they tend to be the ones that lack versatility). possibly even rolling them randomly. I get that this may not be a problem at your table, thats fine, it won't be at my table either. but the advice 'well don't engage in the playstyle you find fun' isn't terribly practical advice.