D&D 5E Spell Preparation: Leaving Slots Open

[jrowland]

Seems pretty clear to me that you must prepare Level + Ability Mod.

"…a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom Modifier + Your Cleric Level (minimum of 1 spell)."

Not "less than or equal to".

clear as mud. It also does not say "you must prepare" or "no more no less" or any number of things. We could argue what it doesn't say all day. And as I have pointed out before, the example below that line says "can prepare" not "must prepare", and granted, it does not say "prepare less than or equal to" either.

The only thing that is clear, is that the language is vague and its not clear. It's my contention that this is on purpose. Its very much in the design to leave things this way and let table rulings determine the outcome.

ipso facto that this thread is 11 pages long and counting is evidence that things are "not pretty clear".

 

[CapnZapp]

clear as mud. It also does not say "you must prepare" or "no more no less" or any number of things. We could argue what it doesn't say all day. And as I have pointed out before, the example below that line says "can prepare" not "must prepare", and granted, it does not say "prepare less than or equal to" either.

The only thing that is clear, is that the language is vague and its not clear. It's my contention that this is on purpose. Its very much in the design to leave things this way and let table rulings determine the outcome.

ipso facto that this thread is 11 pages long and counting is evidence that things are "not pretty clear".

Fine, as long as you don't use "it's not clear" as an argument for "therefore my chosen interpretation is official".

Your chosen interpretation is perfect for your home game, but it's not what a direct reading (involving no lawyerisms) gives you.

The clause is definitely not clear "as mud". There is only one straightforward take. It does not involve other paragraphs. It does not involve the length of this forum thread. In fact, it references no other source but the very text on the page.

And that reading is the one Greenstone made.

Feel free to interpret it other ways any way you like, just as long as you abstain from claiming this is what we should use here, where no DM can decide for us.

Thank you

 

[jrowland]

Fine, as long as you don't use "it's not clear" as an argument for "therefore my chosen interpretation is official".

Your chosen interpretation is perfect for your home game, but it's not what a direct reading (involving no lawyerisms) gives you.

The clause is definitely not clear "as mud". There is only one straightforward take. It does not involve other paragraphs. It does not involve the length of this forum thread. In fact, it references no other source but the very text on the page.

And that reading is the one Greenstone made.

Feel free to interpret it other ways any way you like, just as long as you abstain from claiming this is what we should use here, where no DM can decide for us.

Thank you

Admonishing someone to "abstain from claiming this is what we should use" when there was never was such a claim is what is called a "straw man" argument.

I've laid out up thread my interpration. I think you'll find we agree on the "direct reading" (page 10 I think). If you actually read greenests post you'll see he quotes the text as saying "must prepare". My comments to him, the "clear as mud" comment, as well as the associated "lawyerisms", where to that point. A direct reading certainly precludes "Must prepare". It's an interpretation, and a good one, and as I've discussed before that, probably the RAI. But to say it clearly states "must prepare" is incorrect and entirely the point of this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Admonishing someone to "abstain from claiming this is what we should use" when there was never was such a claim is what is called a "straw man" argument.

I've laid out up thread my interpration. I think you'll find we agree on the "direct reading" (page 10 I think). If you actually read greenests post you'll see he quotes the text as saying "must prepare". My comments to him, the "clear as mud" comment, as well as the associated "lawyerisms", where to that point. A direct reading certainly precludes "Must prepare". It's an interpretation, and a good one, and as I've discussed before that, probably the RAW. But to say it clearly states "must prepare" is incorrect and entirely the point of this thread.

And it's not like people haven't been saying pretty much exactly the same thing since...well, at least page 2, since that's where I said it: the rules are "silent" on this. That is, they do not explicitly speak to forbid, nor to permit. All interpretations on this matter lean entirely on interpretation, and what things one considers pertinent or pointless.

I'm even reminded of the Pathfinder feats issues of bygone days--sometimes, rules text gets removed or changed simply by editors, without any design intent behind it at all, but which can lead to significant (or even self-neutering) results.

(Also, I'm going to assume you meant "RAI" rather than "RAW," since the latter should be the "direct reading" which, I agree, doesn't automatically require "must prepare.")

 

[jrowland]

(Also, I'm going to assume you meant "RAI" rather than "RAW," since the latter should be the "direct reading" which, I agree, doesn't automatically require "must prepare.")

Yes. I'll see if I can edit, thanks!

 

[MG.0]

As the rules stand, allowing 'partial preparation' would allow wizards/clerics to choose the most convenient spell at the time and avoid having to make hard choices on spell selection, giving them an added advantage similar to classes not requiring preparation, like Sorcerers. Therefore I would be strongly inclined to disallow this in my games.

5th edition rules are missing one thing which would prevent this abuse and make it more palatable as an alternative. In 1st edition preparing spells took a fixed amount of time based on the spell level. While the system was kind of clunky, I think something like it could be acceptable as an optional rule.

 

[CapnZapp]

Claiming the rules are "silent" on this issue is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[KarinsDad]

clear as mud. It also does not say "you must prepare" or "no more no less" or any number of things. We could argue what it doesn't say all day. And as I have pointed out before, the example below that line says "can prepare" not "must prepare", and granted, it does not say "prepare less than or equal to" either.

The only thing that is clear, is that the language is vague and its not clear. It's my contention that this is on purpose. Its very much in the design to leave things this way and let table rulings determine the outcome.

ipso facto that this thread is 11 pages long and counting is evidence that things are "not pretty clear".

I think people read too much into what is written.

The implication is clear (change spells once per day after a long rest), the "WotC did not explicitly say x" crowd is trying to muddy the waters. The word "can" means that a PC can change the spells, but doesn't have to. Not "can" change some of them and wait off for others.

This is forum "but they didn't say x" semantics. The rules are clear.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's my contention that this is on purpose. Its very much in the design to leave things this way and let table rulings determine the outcome.

They've come right out and said "Rulings not Rules," yes. There's no point putting the kind of 3.x RAW-uber-alles stridency into a 5e discussion like this. Whatever the rules literally say, and however they might be interpreted, when you ask your DM "I'm preparing my spells, can I just do some of them, and finish the rest later?" all that matters is how he rules, at that time.

For DMs who like to think about the repercussions of their rulings (and that's certainly not all of us), this thread may have given a few things to think about...

For instance, spell preparation is, mechanically, a way of increasing the class's flexibility, it's not a restriction. A Cleric isn't 'limited' to changing his prepared spells after a long rest, he's enabled to do so. A sorcerer or warlock or EK only gets to add to his spells as he levels, he can't just change 'em up after a night's sleep. Letting a caster spread out preparation choices over the day just gives him that much more flexibility, and 5e neo-Vancian casters are already the most flexible casters have ever been in the history of the game, combining as they do the advantages of traditional Vancian & 3.5 Spontaneous casting. So the question is really whether an additional soupçon of flexibility would break the neo-Vancian casters to a meaningfully greater degree.

Personally, I don't think so. The neo-Vancian system removes a lot of the potential frustration and paralysis from playing a prepped caster, and this particular Ruling just takes it a little further, which would be helpful to new players trying to cope with such characters, and wouldn't render them that much more abuseable in the hands of system masters.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

5th edition rules are missing one thing which would prevent this abuse and make it more palatable as an alternative. In 1st edition preparing spells took a fixed amount of time based on the spell level. While the system was kind of clunky, I think something like it could be acceptable as an optional rule.

5e does have that rule. 1 minute per spell level.