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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2363864" data-attributes="member: 3929">Saeviomagy, Dude, easy. I thought I was being polite; please don't let's be snippy.The argument does hold, depending upon when you apply the "must target person affected by Spell Turning" clause, and how you weight the signifigance of the word "cannot" in Mastery of Counterspelling's:"If the spell cannot be affected by spell turning, then it is merely counterspelled."---<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">All spells, given circumstances, cannot be affected by Spell Turning.</li> </ul>This is true.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some spells, regardless of circumstances, cannot be affected by Spell Turning.</li> </ul>This is also true.These two truths constitute two sets of spells you can choose from to be affected by the "If the spell cannot be affected by spell turning" clause.For my Rules reading, I chose the second set of spells that cannot be affected by Spell Turning. You chose the first, and added the requirement that the spells then become able to be affected, by targeting only the Archmage.But Mastery of Counterspelling does not specify "only spells that can be affected by Spell Turning," it explicitly says "If the spell cannot be affected by spell turning". Small difference, perhaps, but relavant.---You disagree with my premisies, but assuming the premisies are correct this argument is a valid one. Call it unsound if you like, but let's despense with the "And wrong" business.Just in case anyone is wondering, I do not argue this for a person with Spell Turning, only for someone with Mastery of Counterspelling, and then because of the "cannot" clause.</blockquote>

Verification