New Character Options: The Book of Many Things 5e 

Not sure if you missed but did not mention it at least. The Reaper Spirits Reaping Scythe attack seems to have unlimited range if target is under Haunt Creature feature. And the target remains haunted until it dies, the spirit disappears, or the spirit uses this action again.... I'm not sure if this makes it *much* more useful spell (Or different). But I do think it does make it a bit more interesting on implementing in... Possibly very much stronger.

also I believe that the Reaper has guaranteed Advantage on attacks

Also to me seems like the Reaper has free advantage on its attacks

@@Herderus Seems so indeed... Think it is upgrade really with these.

@@samiroque9820 It's not unlimited range if I'm reading this correctly, the creature has to be within 5 ft. AND be haunted.

Yeah this reads really similar to the Scribes Wizard Master Scrivener ability, similar flavor

It certainly seems to be the case.

Honestly it seems to me like WotC has been getting worse since Xanathar's.

I believe that because they use the word Imbue your interpretation is spot on and I agree that after 20+ years of WotC publishing books it should be better.

You'd think they would hire a rules lawyer to fix all the dumb loop holes that players will try to exploit at some point but nope, gotta put in more artwork and flavor which players totally can't think up themselves.

Nice ideia. I'd also make this card a bonus action item

The spell is shit though. The summon spells are already weak, this one being worse than those means that getting it free is meh.

I like the flexibility as well. Doubt get me wrong, fey touch is always great, but there are times when i would have liked to change my spell selection. This allows you to take super circumstantial spells for a day or two

Divine soul sorcerers probably love this

​@@koreanbbq2376I'm currently playing a Divine Soul Sorlock, and I must say, the idea of getting access to the entirety of all three of my spell lists is certainly appealing.

RAW it certainly isn't an extra spell slot (all feats that give this say specifically that they don't expend a spell slot). It would be BONKERS hat high level if it was. That's essentially an extra 9th level spell slot. Arcane recovery has a cap on how high the slot level can be (5th level slot only)

​@@insertphrasehere15Except that RAW, the feature doesn't say that you are in any way casting the spell into the card. The spell imbued into the card can literally be a spell that is impossible for you to know or cast, as explained in the video with multiclassing. Nothing in the feature suggests that you expend your own spell slot... which does mean that you get a second 9th level spell, yes. That is pretty crazy, but that's also how it is written.

@@envytee9659 The point of debate wasn't over whether you expend a spell slot when imbuing the spell. It was over whether you expend a slot when casting the imbued spell. It doesn't say that it doesn't cost a spell slot, so I'd say that it does cost the slot. The only way I could see someone reading it as not costing the slot is if the DM considers the Ace to be a magic item, since the DMG says: "Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise." But I'd say that the Ace is not a true magic item.

Agreed it's not a good feeling. 24 hrs can be abused with some cast the day before shenanigans. I'd go with until the end of a long rest.

I don't think so, such features all but scream to be exploited by never resting.

​@@flyfly376 If you never rest, you can never regain your resources. Not being able to regain spells and other abilities will cripple you in a way for which getting to have your spells stay up longer is no compensation.

@@flyfly376 Making the bg3 comparison again, the spell Aid lasts the whole day. There was never a point while playing where I would not rest just to have Aid up all the time since the spell slot was consumed, HP goes down, other casters are missing resources etc. Can you give me an example of how you would exploit this or other spells or features with similar durations?

@@AVJHalonen I assume a variation of "cofeelock"

40 HP's And shit ac means it dies in 1 round. Totally meh

Holy shit u just gave me a char idea for a spelljammer game

I made an eldritch knight that did that with his shield and spells xD

Omfg this is ridiculous “YOU TRIGGERED MY TRAP CARD!” *counterspell* :p

If only clerics weren't the only ones allowed to do as such... 😮‍💨

Correct, the target of it's Scythe must first be affected with "Haunt Creature", then the Reaper Spirit can attack it with it's "Reaping Scythe" and has advantage on all of it's attacks. If a target isn't affected by "Haunt Creature", it's cannot be attacked with "Reaping Scythe".

Huh, weird but probably thematic.

as it is written: yes imho

Yeah, he mentions he doesn't read it that way but it is worded basically exactly the same as every other magic item that allows you to cast spells. None of them mention that you have to spend spell slots (or not) either.

@@coldfusion230 yeah I realize now that this is the more logical way to read it, but then I agree with Chris' asessment, and the feat is pretty weak, as it it just an extra spell known, and that even time limited (8h and such) Basically only worth for the multicalss "exploit"

​@@coldfusion230The reason most magic items don't mention if they expend spell slots is because the rules for magic items say spell slots don't need to be spent unless stated otherwise. I assume the casting of a spell using cartomancer would follow normal spellcasting rules because it doesn't mention anything about a magic item being made, and it only works for you. The only benefits seem to be preparing an extra spell and a free quicken spell on it. This feat is probably only decent for known spellcasters.

This doesn't sound as good as it is being made out as. The Ace feature is basically an additional prepared spell. Yes, MC characters might be able to take some advantage to this (using Chris's Cleric/Wizard example making the card an Aid card was about the best I could come up with) I cast the Aid spell and since this is casting the spell essentially with my resources but the card gives me a single "memorization" I upcast my Aid to 5th lvl since at lvl 11 I have multiple 5thlvl slots but now 3 of the party have an additional 20 HP for 8 hours. In the end this is slightly better than Magic Initiate since your one casting can be up cast but you don't get the free base lvl casting.

If this is about the Cartomancer feat, it does say you can use a card deck as a spellcasting focus

All features that give you an extra spell without slot expended say so. This expends a slot. Would be BROKEN otherwise.

It doesn't need to say it expends a spell slot because the definition of casting a spell in the Spellcasting rules says you have to use a spell slot, and this feat lets you "cast a spell." Magic items don't use a spell slot because there's a rule that says they don't. Feats also include specific exemptions, but this one does not.

@@insertphrasehere15 A feat for an extra spell slot that's limited to 8 hours isn't broken. And having run multiple (13) D&D campaigns at 15+ level, one extra 6-9th level slot is not broken. EDIT: And if all this feat does is essentially give you an extra prepared spell for 8 hours, it is horribly under-powered, and not worth a feat.

@@jimmyrepine8952 An extra 9th level slot is an epic boon. In any case, that's not how the feat works, you still have to spend the slot.

​@@insertphrasehere15What does there being an epic boon for a 9th level slot have to do with anything? There's an Epic Boon that allows you to cast Misty Step once per long rest. There is a feat that does that and gives you more. It's only an extra 9th level slot if the character already has one. Using that as proof the feat is busted is absurd. Seeing as most games don't reach that point (supposedly). And my own personal experience of running 1000+ sessions of level 15+ play, that a character spending a feat to get one extra temporary slot is not an issue. We'll see what happens with the feat (as it's not good in more ways than one). Regardless, having the feat use a spell slot is not how it will be used in my games.

It doesn’t say you cast it without expending a spell slot, it simply says you can cast it as a bonus action

But it says that the spells is imbued within the card, and you are casting it as if it was stored in the card, which would mean that you don't expend the spell slot. Either way you interpret it though, top tier item for Warlocks, because either it's a free spell slot, or it's a spell slot which you can quickly get back with a short rest

@@Eden5000 it never says that you expend the slot, either. At least there's one thing we can probably agree on: WotC did a crap job at wording the feat on so many levels. I'm really coming to believe that D&D is an incredibly complicated game that refuses to put in the effort to have clear enough rules to handle that complexity. Worst of both worlds between rules light systems and crunchy mathfinders. Less flexibility on the one end, less rigor and balance on the other.

@@aidandunne5978 see, I figure it's kinda worse for a Warlock if it doesn't expend a slot. You cap out at 5th level spells, since Mystic Arcanum won't count. Not terrible early, since having 3 third level spells at Warlock 5 instead of 2 is a nice perk for the big fight, but where the feat really gains lots of power is once casters get really high level spells, six plus. If it does cost a slot, yeah, seems solid since you can recharge more easily than other casters.

@@thebitterfig9903 That's true, but majority of campaigns will only go to 10 or 11 anyways, so in the sweet spot of d&d it's best for warlocks

Casting a spell requires using a spell slot unless a more specific rules says otherwise. This does not say otherwise, so it require a spell slot. Magic items don't need a spell slot because there's a rule for them. Fey Touched doesn't require a spell slot because it says you can cast the spell without a spell slot. PHB Magic Initiate is too old to be considered a valid precedent: the One D&D version of Magic Initiate has the same language as Fey Touched.

​@@cohomologygroupI would argue the card is a magic item by its very nature, at least until the spell is used.

From what I read you don't expend a spell slot for the spell you imbue, just have a slot available. Therefore you get a free casting of a spell on your class list if you have spell slots available. Kinda bad for pure Warlocks at higher levels since their Mystic Arcanum does not use or have spell slots for 6-9 spells.

I am a bit hesitant to say that you can cast the spell for free mostly because it doesn't mention anything about the card becoming a magic item, which would cause it to not consume a spell slot, and only you can cast the spell. It feels like it is supposed to follow normal spellcasting rules except where specifically stated.

It also looks like it can only attack a creature it is haunting. I didn't notice either quirks of its attack. Good catch.

The Artificer's Spell-Storing Item uses the particular wording "produce the spell's effect" rather than 'cast the spell' to get around things like components and slots. The Ace does not; it says "cast the spell". The Ring of Spell Storing is a magic item, thus it follows the DMG's rule on casting spells from magic items: "Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise." The Ace, on the other hand, is not a magic item. So casting its imbued spell will cost the requisite slot.

he missed something in it too. It has advantage on all attacks but MUST attack the haunted creature. So it is worse against minions (might lose attacks if it kills on it's first strike and already used haunt), but better against single targets.

"While the card is imbued with the spell, you can use a bonus action to flourish the card and cast the spell within" There is no ambiguity here. You are casting the spell with your bonus action when you flourish the card. Casting a spell requires using a spell slot, so that happens when you flourish the card. It would interact with the bonus action casting rule the way any other bonus-action leveled-spell would, so you may only use your action to cast a cantrip. All this is is a free Quicken Spell.

@@cohomologygroup I get your point, "within" is a bit vague was my issue. I could easily see someone thinking the card doesn't use a spell slot because the focus appears to be on the card, not the caster. Thanks for grabbing the text.

@@g3neralrevan27 Yeah, Crawford can be really obtuse with his application of the principle of "Specific rules supercedes Generic" and should be referencing the generic rules that apply to any specific rules. That's why there's so much confusion about how Magic Missile damage works. The rules are clear, but only if you can hold all of them in your head at the same time. The spell says all missiles hit simultaneously, and there's a general rule in the spellcasting rules that says that if all the damage happens simultaneously, you only roll the damage once for all the targets. This is why you roll 1d4 once and multiply by the number of missiles. But people read the spell, don't remember the general rule the "simultaneous" language is interacting with, so they get confused and think you roll Xd4 as if it were a single-target spell. The same thing is happening here. All the rules for casting a spell are described in the spellcasting rules, and continue to apply unless superceded by a more specific rule. The use of the word "within" is evocative, but it doesn't provide any kind of rule to override the requirements of casting a spell. Feats like Fey Touched that do so say it in unambiguous language "You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot."

The invocation example isn’t a good one since the invocations that don’t use a spell slot also specify that. Since the general rule for spellcasting is that you use a spell slot when casting spells and it doesn’t give a specific exception I’m pretty sure it spends a spell slot RAW. It definitely expends a spell slot RAI otherwise this is the best feat by a mile at higher levels.

@@chrispoznich yea, we have two choices: one is a decent b-tier feat; the other the most broken feat/ability in the entire game.

also the feat requires the spellcasting feature which warlocks don/t have they have pact magic instead

@@justinkennedy5271 Good point!

@@chrispoznich Hmm, yeah that's a good point. The fact that it's even a discussion though means it's incredbly poorly worded lmao. I still read it more like a spell storing item, but also understand that that's almost certainly not RAI. I'm sure there will be a FAQ about it at some point.

The description of the feat says you cast the spell when you flourish the card, not when you imbue it.

​@cohomologygroup Yeah, but since it's also poorly worded and ambiguous, I feel like this is a cleaner way to run it. This makes it so there's still a cost to cast it and you can't cast Wish twice, but it still has a use and might be worth taking. Otherwise, I feel like it's either over or underpowered.

@@stevenmathews9355 Casting a spell requires using a spell slot unless stated otherwise, and this doesn't state otherwise. Compare it to Fey Touched which says you don't need to expend a spell slot to cast the spell it gives you. Some people have brought up Magic Initiate, but that's a very old feat, and the new version of it in One D&D says it lets you avoid needing to use a spell slot, like Fey Touched and other feats. So the ability amounts to giving you a free Quicken Spell. I think if you consider that underpowered, the best way to address it is to make this a half feat.

Except it can also be any spell on your class's spell list not one in your book or that you know.

@@justinkennedy5271 as long as you have a spell slot of that level for the class the spell is from, yes, which is only a very minor thing, basically adds one more spell known on any day to a wizard spell book

Antagonize looks like a weaker version of Enemies Abound. It sits somewhere between Crown of Madness and Enemies Abound with the caveat that it is only a single reaction, where those other spells are ongoing effects, which makes them arguably better.

I would treat the card as a scroll with limited duration.

I mean, im not gonna pretend Cartomancer isn't... odd, but i think saying that it wouldnt cost material components or a spell slot is a stretch. Usually when features allow you to ignore components of any kind, material in this case, they specify that fact. Case in point the spellcasting features of multiple races, which often specify that you can cast them without material components. This just says that you can cast the spell, making it essentially a convoluted Quicken spell for one specific spell once per long rest. Again, not saying it's a well designed feat, but it isn't as broken as you make it out to be.

All the card does is let you cast the spell as a bonus action. It mentions no other alteration to normal spell casting rules, so there is no reason to assume it doesn't follow them

@@Matanlimer I know that and you know that, but since not specified, it is open for interpretation, and therefore open for abuse. Which is the point I was trying to make.

@@partyontheobjective Not really. At least in my opinion if a feature allows you to cast a spell and makes no special mention with regards to it's components, consumption of spell slots, and other features, the presumption should be that the casting follows all the usual rules for casting a spell. You'd need a very rules lawyer like reading of this feat to make that claim.

Casting a spell requires spending a slot unless specified otherwise. This feat does not say it lets you avoid that cost when you cast the spell as other feats such as Fey Touched do.

@@cohomologygroup But it says you are imbuing into the card arguably making it a magic item and casting a spell from a magic item does not cost a spell slot unless stated otherwise. Otherwise the spell wouldn't be imbued. It is incredibly poorly worded and lends to be read either way.

@@erikkesler1739 Imbuing just means it's under the effect of a spell or other kind of effect. It's not a magic item unless the effect says it is a magic item. Contrast it with Shillelegh, which also says it imbues an item, but separately calls out that the item becomes magical. Because this language is not present in Hidden Ace, we can conclude it is not a magic item. "The rules don't say I can't" is not a good basis for designing a game. In the presence of ambiguity, if the rules don't say you CAN, you can't, and "imbuing an item" is not a term the rules define as creating a magical item, so it's not. If you want to homebrew the meaning to make it count as a magic item, you will end up creating a feat more powerful than any other feat in the game, that becomes an instant must-have for every caster. I suggest not doing that.

@@cohomologygroup But cartomancer says "loses it's magic" an item can't lose magic it never had. I am not saying I read it that way I am saying it is terribly written feat and needs FAQ or an Errata asap or more people will get confused. I agree that this reading is broken but the problem is that it isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be.

Imbue isn't a defined term, except in this feat. Creating a magic item like a scroll is not called "imbuing" and the definition we get from this feat is that it creates an item that allows you to use a bonus action to cast a spell. It does not say it is a magic item, so it is not a magic item. Casting a spell is defined in the Spellcasting rules, and those rules apply here. Casting a spell requires using a spell slot, unless a more specific rule removes this requirement. Magic items have a rule that removes that requirement, but this is not a magic item. Feats that let you cast a spell without using a spell slot, like Fey Touched, remove this requirement, by saying "You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot." This feat does not include that language. Therefore, you must use material components and spell slots at the time you use the bonus action to cast the spell. What makes this feat valuable, aside from the direct benefit of getting a free Quickened Spell, is that it lets Bards and Sorcerors use a spell from their spell list that they don't know. That's it.

@@cohomologygroup It arguably is a magic item becuase it is an item that "loses it's magic" when used. It is unclear and a poorly written feat.