dnd 5e – Does casting spells through mizzium armor allow for upcasting?

Mizzium Apparatus lets a caster cast a spell on their spell list for which they have a spell slot of the spells level to cast a spell that they don’t know, assuming a successful arcana check.. Per DMG (page 141) “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 the users spell slots, and requires no components, unless the items description says otherwise”.

This pretty clearly says that if i do not know the spell Scorching Ray, and i successfully use the Apparatus to cast it, it will cast as its native level.

Is this correct?

dnd 5e – Does casting spells thru mizzium armor allow for upcasting?

Mizzium Apparatus lets a caster cast a spell on their spell list for which they have a spell slot of the spells level to cast a spell that they don’t know, assuming a successful arcana check.. Per dmg pp141 “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 the users spell slots,and requires no components, unless the items description says otherwise”.

This pretty clearly says that if i do not know the spell scorching ray, and i successfully use the Apparatus to cast it, it will cast as its native level.

Is this correct?

dnd 5e – House Rule – Upcasting Enlarge / Reduce to extend duration

The party is deep into my 5e-updated classic Greyhawk Giants series.

The hill giants and their orc and goblin minions have attacked the Sterish city of Headwater and have taken about a quarter of the city. The party is about to embark on a mission to go behind enemy lines, kidnap and assassinate a stone giant who is critical to the hill giants’ city / siege offensive as being their only trained engineer. While the party’s patron recognizes that the stone giant needs to die, she also recognizes that at present the Stone Giant Thane has not joined the giant alliance and wants to keep it that way. Thus, she is requesting that they carry the body of the slain giant honorably back to his Thane in an effort to preserve a fragile peace between the humans and the stone giants. I would like the party to be able to accept this mission, without it becoming either a logistical challenge involving wagons and draft animals, or without loaning them a portable hole.

Instead, I would like to provide them with a version of the Enlarge / Reduce spell which is in all aspects identical to the original except that it can be upcast to extend the duration.

I figure the giant is 17 feet high and 1000 pounds; after reduce it would be 8.5 feet and a manageable 125 pounds.

For this version of Enlarge / Reduce I am proposing that:

When cast at 3rd level against living creatures, it lasts 10 minutes

When cast at 3rd level against objects, it lasts 1 hour

When cast at 4th level against living creatures, it lasts 1 hour (similar to polymorph)

When cast at 4th level against objects, it lasts 8 hours

When cast at 5th level against living creatures, it lasts 8 hours (much less than geas)

When cast at 5th level against objects, it lasts 24 hours

The party Wizard is currently 8th level and getting close to 9th. Requiring her to use both her fourth level slots and maintain concentration for the duration of travel every day in order to move swiftly and stealthily into the mountains with the body is just the right level of challenge for the group.

My only concern is that allowing this version of the spell to the party wizard permanently will have some unforeseen interaction with some other spell, ability, or item that I will later regret. This question, for example, asks about upcasting enlarge to permit two changes in creature size, and answers identify the interaction with levitation and grappling being problematic. I am interested in a similar troubleshooting review.

dnd 5e – Is this houserule for upcasting Haste balanced?

The downside is too strong

This answer is coming from someone with the controversial opinion that haste is a terrible waste of a spell slot (unless for some reason moving really quickly is important, and even then expedient retreat potentially covers that for the wizard).

I already refuse to cast haste as a wizard, or have it cast on me as a melee character because spending a round stunned in combat is a price that I find far too steep.

Using the standard spell; for the cost of an action and concentration (caster) you are giving a fighter maybe a 33% damage increase (Lets assume 1d10+5, so around 11 damage per round). That damage increase is less if your fighter is already dual wielding.

Instead your wizard could cast slow, with a significant chance of having a massive effect on combat and a vastly reduced amount of incoming damage. Or they could cast fireball, and lets assume the average combat lasts 3 rounds they only need to hit 3-4 targets to cause as much extra damage as that hasted attack will over the course of the full combat, and fireball doesn’t take concentration – plus frontloaded damage can take out the minions faster which reduces incoming damage and makes the adventuring day easier because less hit dice and less healing spells are needed).

However your fighter is now incredibly vulnerable because your squishy wizard with potentially 13 AC just needs an arrow fired at him to disable them for a round. Losing that round once every few fights actually decreases efficiency despite the hasted action, and that isn’t even counting the opportunity cost of the wizard picking fireball, or the cleric casting better spells because they no longer have to keep slots to heal people.

You are giving pretty small advantages (yes it might push bounded accuracy, but on a player already pushing those boundaries the real issue is the player not your spell), and doubling that downside.

Adding the extra attack is potentially useful, but again at 4th level you could polymorph someone into a t-rex and not only save incoming damage (allowing your cleric to blast or disable enemies instead of healing), but that t-rex is causing all sorts of damage and panic in the enemy ranks. You could also upcast fireball, again only needing to hit 3-4 enemies to cause roughly the same amount of damage.

I would say that if you like haste, then this probably feels as balanced as haste does, but I would also say that if you like haste then balance isn’t actually what you are looking for.

To ‘fix’ it?

As I said your upcasting options are not as powerful as you think, they are in keeping with the theme and basic power level of the spell, but your downside is too much. I would just keep the single round, keep the same upcast options, and call it ready for playtesting.

Side note

The best use of haste (imho), giving a rogue an extra chance to sneak attack with a held action, is not going to be buffed at all by upcasting because even if they could use 2 attacks on that held action via the spell, they only sneak attack on one.

java – upcasting and downcasting

I know that upcasting converts a subclass object into the superclass and downcasting converts a superclass object into the subclass.

But how is it in terms of loss of values ​​and the like?

Example: We have the upper class automobile and the subclass Car improved,

Enhanced Car is a car, but with more things. But when I say Auto c1 = new CarBlue (); From now on, this c1 gets new attributes and methods that can be used?

And in another case: CarChanged cm1 = new car () here it would be a downcasting, but cm1 of the type Improved Car has more things that Car does not have, even if Car Improved is a car, with this assignment, would cm1 lose all its thing "more"?

dnd 5e – How do you make upcasting synonymous with using a higher level spell?

In general, damage-causing spells do not seem worth it; the damage just can not scale well. This is probably due to the design, because no one would go out of his way to cast higher spells if a lower upcast was better. Regardless, I would like to use a magic element as a homebrew, which increases the damage output of spells to approximately the same level as using a corresponding higher level spell. However, this is difficult for me to understand because there are so many qualitative differences between the spells – it's hard to figure out how much I need to improve to make things more quantitative. I know it's ineffective to supplement damage spells, but I do not know how much to add to make it worthwhile.

I'm open to the article having a limited amount of daily fees.

Does the repetition of downcasting and upcasting delete the data in the subclass in Java?

I find that upcasting converts the subclass into a superclass, while downcasting is the opposite. However, assuming that there are different numbers of data types for the subclass and the superclass, the conversion from subclass-> superclass-> subclass is part of the data deletion because some parts of the data within the subclass are not in the superclass.

Since I know floating-point numbers are being dropped when floating data types are converted to int in c ++, I'm wondering if this works the same way for the class in Java.

dnd 5e – In the case of Upcasting Cause, do the targets have to be 30 meters away from all other targets or just one target?

The Cause anxiety Spell says the following about the upcasting (highlighting my):

If you use this spell with a 2nd-level or higher spell slot, you can target an additional creature for each level above the 1st level. The creatures must be less than 30 feet apart when sighted.

Other spells, such as Charm personhave identical restrictions on upcasting. If you apply such a spell on the 3rd level (up to 3 targets), you can chain the spell so that each target is within 30 feet of another target, but two of them are not at a distance from 30 feet apart.

Visualization (X = targets, C = caster):

                                                    C
X <--30ft--> X <--30ft--> X
^ ---------- 65ft ----------- ^

To clarify, my question is whether each creature must be within 30 feet each another goal, if it is enough, if they are within 30 at least one different goal. Just assume that all targets are within 60 feet of the caster, that's not the problem here.

Would this fulfill the condition given by the spell?