D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Maxperson]

A magical language is like dreams. The dreams of each individual are unique. There might be some common themes and tropes in some of the imagery, especially culturally. But ultimately, only the dreamer can know what a dream refers to.

The effort of a spellcaster is to discover and comprehend ones own intuitive language. Every spellbook is unique.

There is no magical language unless you home brew one in. RAW does not specify one outside the language of creation which only bards use.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would I? Yes, the DMG contains guidelines AND rules, what is so difficult about that

Do you remember this post you LITERALLY just made?


So, why do we need starvation rules? Why can't we just make them up? You've stated we don't need the MM, because we can make things up, well, why can't we make up classes, ancestries, and rules for starvation and difficult terrain? You apply one standard to one book, then another standard to the other book, with no rationale except "but this book said that book has rules in it"





You keep saying they aren't rulebooks so... yes, you have both said and implied that the DMG and MM are not Core Rule Books, and then you felt specific need to mention splatbooks, which would be the only other type of book you could refer to those two as.



Nowhere in any official material has it ever been stated that no rules for the game exist outside of the PHB. You have never explained why the Burrowing Rules are different from any other rule, except that they exist in the MM and therefore you refuse to except they are rules.

I have explained this. The DMG paragraph does not state that the only rules in the entire game of Dungeons and Dragons exist in the PHB and nowhere else. It states the rules to run the game are in the PHB, which is true, because the PHB covers the basics of D20 tests which are fundamental to the running of the game. That does not mean that literally everything else is a mere "guideline"



The Language of the Gods contains mystical words. The Language of Fire contains Mystical words. The language of entropy and evil contains Mystical words. RAW's requirement is met.



No. Everyone can roll it. Not everyone is trained in Arcana. Training in Arcana is represented by Proficiency in the skill.



No where in the ability to counterspell does it give you special knowledge of words and tones. Nor does Counterspell require you to have used magic, or be a sorcerer. You are continually making things up.



Nothing about NOT SCREAMING LIKE A FOOL!!! requires a special rule.

Forget it. See you around or not.

 

[Yaarel]

You are arguing False Equivalences there. Smoke signals, light flash morse code, etc. were designed for communication. You cannot show that the tones used for verbal were intended to be a language.

If the verbal component was not intended to be a language, then none of your language arguments mean anything since you have to use those non-language tones and they are recognizable regardless of language. If the verbal component was meant to be a language, then none of your language arguments mean anything since you must use the mystic words and not D&D languages. Either way the mystic tones must be consistent per RAW as they are "particular combinations" and are therefore recognizable as spellcasting.

Each unique magical idiolect is a language. Its information can be translated from one idiolect to an other idiolect.

This is what happens when the playtest usage of the Identify spell deciphers the idiolect of the spellbook of an other caster into ones own idiolect that one does understand. The other spellbook has magical information. A language records it. But one needs to understand it on ones own terms, in ones own language.

 

[Maxperson]

Each unique magical idiolect is a language. Its information can be translated from one idiolect to an other idiolect.

Language is more than that. You can't speak mystic and have a conversation. It's not language, even if a particular combination of sounds is sleep and another is meteor swarm.

This is what happens when the playtest usage of the Identify spell deciphers the idiolect of the spellbook of an other caster into ones own idiolect that one does understand. The other spellbook has magical information. A language records it. But one needs to understand it on ones own terms, in ones own language.

There are more to spells than the sounds, and he needs to pick out the mystical portion of the spell from the unimportant parts of the verbal. It takes a bit to learn, but the major parts are the same per RAW.

 

[Yaarel]

Language is more than that. You can't speak mystic and have a conversation. It's not language, even if a particular combination of sounds is sleep and another is meteor swarm.

There are more to spells than the sounds, and he needs to pick out the mystical portion of the spell from the unimportant parts of the verbal. It takes a bit to learn, but the major parts are the same per RAW.

A dream is a language. Semiotic.

D&D magic is an "information system".

There is no shared language. But each caster has ones own magical language, that only oneself understands.

What the caster needs to learn is, which aspects of ones own intention and expression correlates with an actual magical manifestation. In other words, what exactly works?

Each caster arrives at a different method and style.

 

[Maxperson]

A dream is a language. Semiotic.

D&D magic is an "information system".

There is no shared language. But each caster has ones own magical language, that only oneself understands.

What the caster needs to learn is, which aspects of ones own intention and expression correlates with an actual magical manifestation. In other words, what exactly works?

Each caster arrives at a different method and style.

No matter what reasoning you come up with to explain things, you either are wrong. That's RAW, which you are ignoring. Every bit of the last several posts has been with the assumption that the PHB is wrong in it's section regarding verbal components.

 

[Yaarel]

No matter what reasoning you come up with to explain things, you either are wrong. That's RAW, which you are ignoring. Every bit of the last several posts has been with the assumption that the PHB is wrong in it's section regarding verbal components.

We are seeing the same RAW, with regard to a "Verbal" component.

But there is also RAW elsewhere, such as how a "spellbook" works, that is also necessary to take into account to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the RAW.

It is incorrect to choose some parts of RAW and ignore other parts of RAW and still call the result RAW.

It is also incorrect to add gratuitous houserules to RAW and still call it RAW.

But the RAW is what it is. Nothing in RAW suggests that the Verbal component must be loud or share the same language or the same linguistic features.

For example, one spell caster might be mute, and for this one − according to RAW − the "Verbal" component is perhaps tongue clicks and hisses.

 

[Maxperson]

We are seeing the same RAW, with regard to a "Verbal" component.

But there is also RAW elsewhere, such as how a "spellbook" works, that is also necessary to take into account to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the RAW.

See, I've accounted for both. You have not. You use the spellbook RAW to contradict the verbal RAW, rather than blend the two together with my "latin" example above.

It is incorrect to pick parts of RAW and ignore other parts of RAW and still call the result RAW.

Yes it is. But that is what you are doing. My "latin" suggestion accounts for the need to understand the idiosyncrasies of the spellbook section, while still maintaining the need for specific sounds, tones and pitches. You are simply throwing out the verbal RAW requiring specifics because it doesn't conform to your idea of the spellbook section.

 

[Yaarel]

See, I've accounted for both. You have not. You use the spellbook RAW to contradict the verbal RAW, rather than blend the two together with my "latin" example above.

But the "Latin" (for example) counts as a SHARED language. The magical Verbal component is precisely an unshared language.

These spellcasters can each have a unique Verbal component that shares NOTHING in common with each other, except for being "verbal".

There is no "Latin" term or word element "SOM", for example. There might be nothing in common between two casters.

This is why they cannot read each others spellbooks.

 

[Yaarel]

Even if a caster can apply an Arcana check to discern what a section of text might relate to, such as what spell it might be, one still cant get that spell to work until one understands it in ones own unique magical language.

Plausibly, this is also why a caster cannot understand and cast a spell from a higher spell slot, even if spellbooks are in front of one with it. The caster has not yet intuited a personal language that can make sense of the powers and precisions involved in the higher slot.