Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8414141" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Semantics determined by individual DM's I'm thinking. For my, &quot;if it's not able to be done using the natural reality of the current Prime Material Plane ('campaign world'), then it's magic&quot;. Being able to &quot;tap into&quot; or &quot;understand and manipulate&quot; is irrelevant ...the end result is &quot;it's magic&quot;.Now I'm going to play the semantics card... <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Page201, PHB:&quot;What is a Spell?&nbsp;&nbsp; A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.&quot;To me, this is defining of what a 'spell', mechanically, is in the 5e game. Now, most spells in the PHB are going to be what are commonly assumed when the word &quot;Spell&quot; is used (re: Fireball, Dispel Magic, Gate, Polymorph, etc), to be sure. BUT...what I just quoted does NOT make that distinction; it's defining 'spell' as an expression of magic...like a Beholders eye powers.As I semantically pointed out... spells aren't spells only. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Unless, of course, the DM rules they are. Which is cool. As I've said, I have no problem with a DM ruling that way and I'd happily play in a game where that was the case.And, before it goes there...it probably has already, but anyway... I DO NOT think this needs any sort of &quot;errata&quot;. Just leave it as is and let individual DM's and groups decide how far a &quot;spell&quot; covers in terms of what is/isn't, well, &quot;magic&quot;. It makes for a MUCH more interesting and diverse playing field. Differing opinions, outlooks, preferences, etc when running D&amp;D is a GOOD THING! It should be lauded, not vilified. Well, imnsho, of course. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />See above.In my game, yeah, you can Counterspell a Beholder's eye stalk effects... otherwise the DM would have to say &quot;No, you can't Dispel Magic on your buddy who you believe is Charmed from the Beholders first eyestalk...because it's not magic&quot;. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 8414141, member: 45197"] Hiya! Semantics determined by individual DM's I'm thinking. For my, "if it's not able to be done using the natural reality of the current Prime Material Plane ('campaign world'), then it's magic". Being able to "tap into" or "understand and manipulate" is irrelevant ...the end result is "it's magic". Now [I]I'm[/I] going to play the semantics card... ;) Page201, PHB: [I][B]"What is a Spell?[/B] A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression."[/I] To me, this is defining of what a 'spell', mechanically, is in the 5e game. Now, most spells in the PHB are going to be what are commonly assumed when the word "Spell" is used (re: Fireball, Dispel Magic, Gate, Polymorph, etc), to be sure. BUT...what I just quoted does NOT make that distinction; it's defining 'spell' as an expression of magic...like a Beholders eye powers. As I semantically pointed out... spells aren't spells only. ;) Unless, of course, the DM rules they are. Which is cool. As I've said, I have no problem with a DM ruling that way and I'd happily play in a game where that was the case. And, before it goes there...it probably has already, but anyway... I [I]DO NOT[/I] think this needs any sort of "errata". Just leave it as is and let individual DM's and groups decide how far a "spell" covers in terms of what is/isn't, well, "magic". It makes for a MUCH more interesting and diverse playing field. Differing opinions, outlooks, preferences, etc when running D&D is a GOOD THING! It should be lauded, not vilified. Well, imnsho, of course. :) See above. In my game, yeah, you can [I]Counterspell [/I]a Beholder's eye stalk effects... otherwise the DM would have to say "No, you can't [I]Dispel Magic[/I] on your buddy who you believe is [I]Charmed [/I]from the Beholders first eyestalk...because it's not magic". ;) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification