Immoralkickass
Adventurer
Even from Crawfords mouth?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
You seem to have already decided on the answer. So why do you still ask us?
Even from Crawfords mouth?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I was wanting to know about the antimagic field.You seem to have already decided on the answer. So why do you still ask us?
I was wanting to know about the antimagic field.
He also has it on a Simulacrum that was turned into a dragon.
Wanting to also know if the antimagic field would kill it
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I see, that makes sense. Was looking for opinionsIts good to know the RAI part, but I wouldn't put much stock in JC's words, especially after he disallowed Twinning Dragon's Breath. I don't think JC understands what permanent means. If it can be removed with a simple dispel, then its not permanent.
Its good to know the RAI part, but I wouldn't put much stock in JC's words, especially after he disallowed Twinning Dragon's Breath. I don't think JC understands what permanent means. If it can be removed with a simple dispel, then its not permanent.
Well I don't want to sound rude or anything, but I am not sure if you understand the technical meaning of "permanent" when it comes to D&D spells. It means that the spell is still active there, and so it can be dispelled and it can be temporarily suppressed by antimagic.
Instead, an instantaneous spell is what results in its effects being non-dispellable, because the spell is already gone while the effects remain.
But it's also possible of course that I don't understand it right...
EDIT: [MENTION=6864983]Immoralkickass[/MENTION], to your credit, I just noticed that there is a key discrepancy between the SRD and the PHB text for True Polymorph, and it has NOT being erratad :/
PHB text says: "If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation becomes permanent."
SRD text says: "If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled."
I have an old PHB and was just looking at the SRD assuming that it is more recent, but without an official errata about it, I am now confused.
Unlike prior editions, Sage Advice is just that: advice. That's why they give RAW, RAI, and RAF in the articles, so that the DM can decide for himself. What's actually written is RAW, what Crawford (and other WotC employees) say is RAI (or sometimes RAF, if denoted as such). Sage Advice is only gospel for organized play.Even from Crawfords mouth?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk