Search results

I agree with everything Arial just posted. There's no assumptions being made from either of us. The RAW is very clear that you have to provide the requirements or you can't even begin casting the spell, never mind actually getting any effects going. Again I believe both Arial and I are in...

The readying rules are specific beating the general spell casting rules. They cannot be used to represent how spells as a whole function outside of readying actions. That being said, you still must fully cast the spell when readying, which includes providing (in full) all of the component...

This is a combination of the Argument from Silence fallacy (it doesn't say it doesn't work like it did before in 3.5e, so it can) and the Munchkin fallacy (it doesn't say I can't, so I can).. Agree to disagree. I won't be replying again so as to avoid derailing the thread further.

Yes exactly, it's nice that some people apparently feel they can cherry pick which rules to argue have carried over (even though they don't even exist in 5e) and which rules didn't whenever they feel it suits a claim they are making but that's just not how it works. This is 5e, not 1 - 4e. The...

You're right it doesn't, so it can't be torn from the inside :) Previous editions had rules to allow it to be torn from the inside. 5e does not. Stick with what is written.

REplies in bold. You have a good one buddy! And I'll add that the only who has been snarky and rude has been you. I've made efforts to ignore it but it gets annoying to try and talk to someone who's acting this way.

No because until released there are no effects to target. Dispel does not target a spell, it targets effects. You're failing to understand that difference. Until you release the effects as a reaction you have nothing to target. I've said this all along. Try to keep up...

Well in regards to the first sentence and second sentence, it's actually you who's making a claim without any sort of rules or flavor support since you're resorting to quoting rules from 2 editions ago. If the rule isn't found in 5e, it has no relevance for this discussion. That's simply not...

This is ambiguous. It's a sentient artifact without much background information (per WOTC) so as to allow the DM some creative freedom for RP and whatever. I think that a sentient artifact would be able to at least understand what's going on around it. From what I understand it might have...

That's exactly what I'm saying too Arial. 100% agreement there.

but instead of then makes no difference in how the thing resolves dude.. I didn't misrepresent anything. @_@ The components are required to cast the spell in the first place. IF you can't provide ALL the components required, you can't cast the spell. That indicates that in order to cast you...

Not to mention one or multiple checks for the sentient weapon dominating the person trying to put it in the sheathe or whatever. However, only do that if it's actually fun for the party. If the group just wants to get rid of it or get on with things, you should let them.

I don't think it's shaky ground. The requirements to cast a spell are that you provide ALL component requirements. If you can't provide them, you can't cast the spell. Ready explains that you MUST cast the spell "as normal" and that you then hold the energy. If you need to cast the spell...

exactly, by the point you are holding the energy, the spell has already been cast which must include all requirements including but not limited to the component requirements. You can't successfully cast the spell if you don't provide them completely.

I believe the logic is as follows: In order to gain the effects of casting a spell, you must first successfully cast the spell. In order to successfully cast the spell you must: Expend a slot of the appropriate level Expend the required action type (Action, Bonus or Reaction being the 3...

silence cur! We need the 5e hard back! :p

I've agreed with you plenty of times as well. We just seem to both be stubborn about this discussion in particular.

You don't need to belittle the person you speak with btw. You're being condescending as well imo and I would like you to stop. I am not a kid or child. I'm an adult, just like you are (presumably). So let's stop that now k? I never said that your claims were related, you just invented that...

Agreed +1

1. Option A 2. OPtion B 3. Option C 4. Option D 5. All of the above 6. Nothing Problem solved!