Enchanted Casting Tool proves nothing - by definition.
Instead it introduces a (possibly seperate) set of rules, namely devices enchanted to interact (and usually support) the casting of a single specific spell.
It might hint at a more general rule, but cannot be used to prove the validity of said rule.
Essentially, using ECT to argue that all spells specifically need unique cassting tokens is using the specific to "prove" the general, without any further information.
See incomplete induction for more information.
The fact that that specific rule consider that the casting tool is associated with a spell as a prerequisite to enchanting it certainly proves something. Whoever wrote that rule assumed that association was RAW.
Since HOH:MC is canon, "a casting tool is associated to a spell" is RAW. That still leaves many interpretations open, but you have to argue starting from this fact.
That would seem to imply a casting tool can be associated with several spells or techniques or whatever. (Of course, if you do have enchanted casting tools you want one per tool for enchanting purposes.) Meh, I think flexibility is both a valid interpretation and the funnest.
I've just been re-reading enchanted casting tools (a few times), and I cannot find that particular sentence - could you help me narrow down my search, please?
Is it on p. 123 or 124? Where on the page please?
I can see how each enchanted casting tool must be associated with a specific spell, but not how this is stated to be generally true, except by very vague indications.
To generalise from this individual case to the general case that all casting tools are spell-specific is incomplete induction and thus an invalid argument without further information.
The ironic thing is that I'm not arguing agianst you - I was sure I'd read that casting tools were bound to individual spells - but you're argument caught my attention.
HoH:MC p123, last para, 1st sentence. For everyone's convenience: "To enchant a casting tool, compare the magus’s Technique and Form Lab Total to the level of the spell that the casting tool is associated with."
Yes, and I think that was Lamech's point too. The fact that a "casting tool is associated with" a spell might not preclude the same tool associated with multiple spells, depending on what you consider left unsaid.
I had the same memory, but that's the best RAW I could come up with.
That would be a good argument. Property might mean "associated with a spell". The other easy meaning would be "casting bonuses", but if that means Fast Casting et al. it cannot be.
I you're looking for absolutes in the form of "each casting tool is associated with a specific spell", then you are probably out of luck. Once you accept that then you can work out whether you're happy interpreting it as such and further whether you want to stick to that for your own game. It's my three-point path to happiness:
Accept that the rule isn't explicit
Work out your best interpretation of what's there
Work out whether it's a good fit for your current saga
MOst of the people that played previous editions recall a casting tool associated to each formulaic spell. However, it seems tha tit might be legacy and that 5th edition left the options more open. I am happy with that and have no problems with it Nice to know, in any case.
Nice to know, in any case.