NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7868903" data-attributes="member: 6779196">But that’s the thing. If a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules can’t be expressed in 5e without creating the type of problems we see in Booming Blade, then the existence of the problems we see in Booming Blade could be an indicator of intent to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules. Especially because if the intent was not to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules, they could easily have done so without creating those problems.I mean, we have confirmation that wasn’t their intent, so evidently the problems are just a result of poor wording. But I don’t think that would have been at all clear without Crawford’s tweets.I’d say that’s a fair assessment. The thing is, I have noticed that 5e really only pretends to use natural language, while subtly assigning highly technical meanings to natural-sounding terms. This is unsurprising to me, coming as it does from Wizards of the Coast, whose decades of experience with fine-tuning the wording in Magic the Gathering has made them experts at making technical language sound natural. 5e’s language is actually pretty lacking compared to M:tG’s standard, but that makes sense since a. it’s a different team and b. “the rules read like Magic cards” was a big critique of 4e.Yeah, I am not surprised that’s his stance on it, in light of the other answers he has given to questions about these two spells. My point isn’t that my reading was their intent, it’s that my reading is what a technical interpretation of the text would indicate.A good point, well made. I must concede that if we are being consistent in reading the rules technically, this would be the correct interpretation of the result of attempting to cast BB or GFB in an antimagic field.</blockquote>

Verification