I often hear arguments along these lines:
Because X is higher level than Y, and X cannot do this, Y must not be able to do it either.
In other words, X must, because it is higher-level, be strictly superior to Y and Y cannot have any advantage over X.
Common extreme examples include:
-
Because minor image cannot produce intelligible speech, ghost sound also cannot, as ghost speech is a lower-level spell.
-
Because vocal alteration can't do anything but produce a certain kind of intelligible speech, ghost sound cannot produce intelligible speech, since ghost sound is a lower level.
-
Because minor creation cannot create non-magical objects (i.e. the effect disappears if it gets dispelled), create water also cannot create non-magical water, since create water is a lower-level spell.
Such beliefs seem to be in direct contradiction with the stated rules of the spells in question. A more pervasively problematic consequence is that low-level spells (especially level 0 and 1st) seem to suffer from extremely critical examination when compared to higher level spells.
-
Grease doesn't specify that it is flammable, so it's not.
-
Produce Flame isn't a damage dealing spell, because Dazing Produce Flame is too good of a spell for fourth level, but Mage's Sword is because it's a higher level.
etc.
My question isn't whether these spells work this way. My question is whether this kind of argument has some basis in the rules.
Is there a rule somewhere that I've missed that says that higher level spells have to be strictly better than lower level ones, or something to that effect?
Best Answer
The only officially stated case where a spell is explicitly required to be strictly inferior to all spells of higher level (or even other spells of the same level) is prestidigitation. It has the following unique line:
This is because prestidigitation’s capability is left open-ended; this clause effectively says “if some other, specific/specialized spell can do something, that thing must be too much for prestidigitation to accomplish.”
This line does not apply to any other spell
All other spells are not subject to prestidigitation’s spell description, of course, and no line exists which replicates it. The line of argumentation that you describe is inaccurate according to the rules.
It may be a relevant argument to make for how a spell should behave. On its own, it’s not good enough really – your examples demonstrate that quite well. But as part of an overall argument, it can, in some cases, be fairly compelling circumstantial evidence that a given spell has an editing mistake or otherwise shouldn’t behave as written. But that’s the most it can ever be.