+1 Arcane Grimoire or a Mizzium Apparatus, starting item

[Kessel]

my new PC, level 7 wizard (still deciding which school/race) gets to start with either a +1 Arcane Grimoire or a Mizzium Apparatus.

am planning on grabbing a level of cleric at some point.

I want to end up with both items eventually but might not get the chance, the game is lean on gold and chances to buy magic items.

which would you lean towards as the priority?

[Rukelnikov]

Mizzium apparatus gives more options, Arcane Grimore makes you better at what you already could do. Personally I'd get the apparatus first because I prefer enablers over perfecters, but either will be ok.

[kingcheesepants]

Check with your DM if he's going to run the Mizzium Apparatus as written. It wasn't really built with multiclassing in mind and is extremely overpowered on the build you're contemplating. OP enough that it's likely the DM will nerf it by saying you can't cast spells of a level you don't know even if you have slots for it. So for example Wiz 4 Cl 1 would have 3rd lvl slots but couldn't cast Fireball or Spirit Guardians, Wiz 5 Cl 1 could cast Fireball but still no Spirit Guardians. As written though once you have those 3rd level slots you could cast either even though you wouldn't be able to do either without the item.

If he's not planning on nerfing it than 100% take the apparatus, access to the full cleric list and the ability to cast literally every wizard spell beats out a +1 save DC upgrade by a longshot. Take Knowledge Cleric so that you can get expertise in Arcana and always pass the check and you'll be set. Just don't abuse it too much or you'll find just how far your DMs patience for shenanigans really is.

If he is planning on nerfing it, then it's a much closer call but I'd still say that being able to access all the 1st level cleric spells and all the wizard spells up to your casting level is worth it. Just so many times when you would think "If only I had such and such spell prepared." but with the apparatus you won't need to worry about that.

[Kessel]

I've never had access to a MizzApp before, even nerfed it seems like a winner.
thank you, both of you.

[prototype00]

The Cartomancer feat is a more limited use Mizzium Apparatus like feat with some nice bonuses, you could take that *and* the Arcane Grimoire to good effect.

[Kessel]

huh, I've been sleeping on The Book of Many Things... a quick google shows it's powerful, but I didn't see any official ruling if it uses a spell slot or not. it's still strong if it uses a slot but jumps up in magnitudes of power if it doesn't. almost seems too good, if no slot required..?

[prototype00]

huh, I've been sleeping on The Book of Many Things... a quick google shows it's powerful, but I didn't see any official ruling if it uses a spell slot or not. it's still strong if it uses a slot but jumps up in magnitudes of power if it doesn't. almost seems too good, if no slot required..?

RAW consensus is that you cast the spell normally (ie with the slot and the appropriate spell components) what changes is the casting time and the ability to pick a spell you don’t know but is on your list that you have slots for (which works like the Mizzium apparatus for multiclass since the wording is similar/identical).

[Keravath]

RAW consensus is that you cast the spell normally (ie with the slot and the appropriate spell components) what changes is the casting time and the ability to pick a spell you don’t know but is on your list that you have slots for (which works like the Mizzium apparatus for multiclass since the wording is similar/identical).

Just FYI .. I haven't seen any "RAW consensus" because RAW does not define what the word "imbue" means. The feat does NOT state that a spell slot needs to be expended, only that a character have a spell slot of the appropriate level.

Many DMs lean towards ruling that it requires a spell slot to be expended. I've also seen a number lean towards not requiring a spell slot. How a DM wants to run it is up to them since the "RAW" in this case is ambiguous since the meaning of "imbue" in the context of putting a spell into a card is not defined in 5e.

The power of the feat goes up significantly if a spell slot is not required, especially in the hands of a tier 4 wizard.

[prototype00]

Just FYI .. I haven't seen any "RAW consensus" because RAW does not define what the word "imbue" means. The feat does NOT state that a spell slot needs to be expended, only that a character have a spell slot of the appropriate level.

Many DMs lean towards ruling that it requires a spell slot to be expended. I've also seen a number lean towards not requiring a spell slot. How a DM wants to run it is up to them since the "RAW" in this case is ambiguous since the meaning of "imbue" in the context of putting a spell into a card is not defined in 5e.

The power of the feat goes up significantly if a spell slot is not required, especially in the hands of a tier 4 wizard.

You are correct that “Imbue” doesn’t have a RAW definition but “casting a spell” does:

Cartomancer text:

… “ While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic.”…

Chapter 10 PhB:

“When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell's level or higher, effectively "filling" a slot with the spell.”

Since nothing in the feat says that the casting is altered in any way other other than stated, the requirements for casting the spell are the same and we can discount terminology like “Imbue” that has no RAW significance in game.

But it seems that aside from that you ultimately agree with me, so no worries.

[Arial Black]

You are correct that “Imbue” doesn’t have a RAW definition but “casting a spell” does:

Cartomancer text:

… “ While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within. The card then immediately loses its magic.”…

Chapter 10 PhB:

“When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell's level or higher, effectively "filling" a slot with the spell.”

Since nothing in the feat says that the casting is altered in any way other other than stated, the requirements for casting the spell are the same and we can discount terminology like “Imbue” that has no RAW significance in game.

But it seems that aside from that you ultimately agree with me, so no worries.

I don't read it the way you do.

"You use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within."

For me, it's not you doing two things: 1) flourish, 2) cast.

It's you doing one thing (flourish), which then causes the imbued item to do something (cast).

This is supported by the wording that "The card then immediately loses its magic", rather than saying you lose your magic (in the form of a spell slot).

[prototype00]

I don't read it the way you do.

"You use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within."

For me, it's not you doing two things: 1) flourish, 2) cast.

It's you doing one thing (flourish), which then causes the imbued item to do something (cast).

This is supported by the wording that "The card then immediately loses its magic", rather than saying you lose your magic (in the form of a spell slot).

Then we come back to the unfortunate lack of RAW rules for act of “Imbuing”, can you point them out to me? Where are you getting whatever you are imbuing the card with?

If it’s the act of putting the spell slot in the card a long with the spell you pick, you are just advocating what I said with extra steps. If you say that it generates an extra spell slot from thin air, then you are not agreeing with the Dictionary definition of imbue:

“Like its synonym infuse, imbue implies the introduction of one thing into another so as to affect it throughout.”

Note: I am only turning to the dictionary because there is a complete lack of RAW rules for the terminology of “imbue”.