Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9477986">Except when you are mistaken, as I have shown, and leaving others with your incorrect understanding.However, you are compelling me to explain so others will not be similarly mislead as you have been. Don't feel badly about it--you are far from the first to not have a complete grasp on the particulars of English tenses; it is the worst part of teaching the language to others, frankly speaking.Text In Question:"Once per turn, when a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire damage, you can add your Charisma modifier to that spell's damage against one of the spell's targets."Cast (Simple Present Tense): Use for fact or habit. Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you cast (simple present) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add....Anything that is triggered on that turn happens then and there and is done. A spell you cast IS part of the trigger. The spell is cast (simple present) and deals (simple present) additional damage.Cast (Simple Past Tense): for a completed activity that happened in the past.Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you cast (simple past) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- completed on a past turn), you add....Makes no sense at all. A spell you already cast (completed activity) does not benefit on the current turn when it deals damage (present activity). The complete trigger is a spell you cast deals Radiant or Fire Damage. You are confusing the present tense "deals" with the action of casting the spell. It creates a disagreement of tenses for the spell to be cast (simple past) and deals (simple present) damage in the triggering event.Have Cast (Present Perfect Tense): for an action that began in the past. (Often, the action continues into the present.)Once per turn (the current turn), when a spell you have cast (present perfect) deals Radiant or Fire damage (the complete trigger -- on the current turn), you add..."Have cast" (present perfect) represents an action that began in the past and (in this case like wall of fire) continues into the present, and it works with the simple present tense of "deals" without disagreement of tenses. If the spell does not continue into the present (subsequent turns like burning hands), then it applies only on the turn it was cast.If they had intended for the damage to be applied on subsequent turns, they would have specified that. "You continue to add X damage each turn the chosen target takes damage from this spell" or something.I hope you enjoyed your English grammar lesson for the day. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yes I am willing, but you keep interpretting it incorrectly so I have to continue to correct you...However, I cannot explain it more clearly than I have above. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't claim I am wrong when I have shown why the Present Perfect tense would be needed to create the interpretation you are looking for.The Simple Present "cast" is the only interpretation that works with the text as written without creating a disagreement in tenses. The Simple Past "cast" creates the disagreement in tenses and does not work as written.I truly hope that clears up this issue. If their intent was otherwise, they will let us know, change the text, or clarify it in some other way (hopefully!). It is, unfortunately, one of the worst pitfalls of "natural language" when most people don't correctly know how English grammar works and confuse it with spoken use. I see it all the time--daily.Concerning the power of the feature, itself, it is not weak even given the proper interpretation of the text. You not only gain Resistance to Radiant damage, but can bump your damage spells a bit, even on other peoples' turns if you cast a spell then. Tier 2 subclass features are not typically strong, and this is middle of the road IMO.As I have stated above, allowing it to work on subsequent turns won't break anything and might have been their intent, however what they wrote doesn't actually support that.Fine, you can have the last word. Hopefully it will be "Oh, okay, I see it now."If not, well then we will agree to disagree, and others can read both explainations and accept whichever they find most likely to be correct.Cheers. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification