Enhanced Stats and Spells

[hong]

Of course I am serious. Actually, I was exagerating slightly: he only looses one of his extra spells for each one he cast, so he could retain a few extra slots by only casting a couple of spells for the rest of his life.

There may be arguments against Scion's position, but the fact that a wizard theoretically could carry a few extra spells for the rest of his life (while true) really isn't one of them.


glass.

Ah, right. I was not aware that D&D was a theater of the absurd. Apparently, to some people, it is.


Hong "not that there's anything wrong with that" Ooi

 

[drnuncheon]

The 'it doesnt state it' is perfectly legal, since everything that does actually kill memorized spells says it specifically.

That's a circular argument.

"Everything that kills memorized spells says it does."
"What about this?"
"Well, it doesn't say it kills memorized spells, so it doesn't."
"How do you know everything that kills memorized spells says so specifically?"
"Because some things that kill memorized spells say they do."

Sorry, no logic points there.

"All cats are black."
"What about that cat?"
"Well, it's not black, so it's not a cat."
"How do you know all cats are black?"
"Because some cats are black."

Other than the fact that the rules do not say that it happens? lets see.. you want me to disprove some rule that you have more or less just made up wholecloth.

No, I want you to prove some rule that you appear to have made up out of whole cloth - that being, 'some effects of stat damage or drain do not occur immediately'.

Pg 53: She is limited to a certain number of spells of each spell level per day, according to her class level. A wizard must prepare spells ahead of time by gtting a good nights sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decideds which spells to prepare. A wizards bonus spells are based on int.

There we are, prepare. They are all prepared at the same time with that 1 hour of studying after an appropriate period of rest to refresh the slots.

Granted, and not in dispute.

Pg 154: Rest: to prepare her daily spells, a wizard must have a clear mind. To clear her mind, the wiard must first sleep for 8 hours.

This is just for reference.

Again granted.

Pg 154: Spell preperation time: afer resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If the character wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour.

Reference again. It might take a shorter period of time, if the wizard still has spells prepared from the day before.

Again granted.

Pg 154: Spell selection and preperation: During the study period, a wizard chooses which spells to prepare. The act of prepareing a spell is actually the first step in casting it... If the wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

Notice the abandoning and such. During the study period they choose which slots to empty, which to fill, and which to leave purposefully emtpy.

None of this is in dispute.

Pg 155: Spell selection and preperation: When preparing spells for the day, the wizard can leave some spell slots open.

Notice, you choose which to leave open when preparing. Just because you get some later for some reason does not mean that you can use them, they have to be left open purposefully during this time.

Exactly! This is why, when you get a bonus spell slot, you can't use it immediately, even though you get it immediately.

However, that does not apply to losing a slot. If the lowering of your spells per day occurs immediately, as I contend, then you must lose a prepared spell - otherwise you would have more spells per day than you are permitted.

Just as a lowering of the Con score causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current hit points, a lowering of Intelligence (or level) causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current spells per day.

pg 155: prepared spell retention: once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she casts the prescribed components to trigger it (or until she abandons it).

Notice that it does not mention a stat lowering as getting rid of these spells.

Not on my page 155. I'll dig out my 3.0 PHB, though. It looks like the relevant text is the same, but you left a little bit out:

"Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."

So clearly, it's possible to lose a prepared spell even if you don't deliberately abandon it or cast it.

Pg 156: daily readying of spells: Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest, after which he spends 15 minutes concentrating. During this period, the sorcerer or bard readies his mind to cast his daily allotment of spells. Without such a period to refresh himself, the character does not regain the spell slots he used up the day before.

Again, you must rest before gaining any spell slots. This is stated time and again. Also, all spells are gotten then, which means that you must have those slots ready to use at that time.

You must rest before regaining the use of any spell slots, you are correct. Again, nobody disputes this.

But none of your quotes has anything to do with losing spell slots! You are making a logical leap there that is unwarranted.

Taken all together all of this supports my claims of needing to have the item on when preparing/gaining those spell slots after resting.

Which claim nobody disputes.

Since then those spells are in ones mind then taking off the ring or lowering the stat wouldnt do anything, it would simply change how many slots you get 'next time you get to regain your spells'. Big difference.

And there's the logical leap again. You've talked again and again about how you can't use a spell slot until you've rested. But you haven't made a single connection to the alleged fact that you don't lose a spell slot until you've rested.

The crux of your argument seems to rest with the quote on page 155, which specifically allows that there may be other factors that cause a spell to be removed (and thus doesn't help your case any), and with the unwarranted assumption that because some abilities point out X, all abilities which have X must point it out.

J

 

[Scion]

That's a circular argument.

The text says that some special abilities kill memorized spells, there are instances of these abilities and they state it. Simply assuming that something else out there would also erase them, without any proof, is just bad. Bad logic.

Mine is, 'if it states that it does, then it does', the other side seems to be, 'if I want it to change it then it does, if I dont then it doesnt'. Mine works much better in the rules.

The other side to this case is either just as circular, or neither is circular. As the other side assumes that because it is how they want it to work then it must be true, wonderful logic there

No, I want you to prove some rule that you appear to have made up out of whole cloth - that being, 'some effects of stat damage or drain do not occur immediately'.

I am merely not extrapolating into areas that the rules do not cover and claiming that it is by the raw. Everything I have said is in the rules, I quoted several relevant passages and talked about others.

Now, if someone would kindly point out where it says, anywhere, that loseing stats will cause a loss of spells prepared? It doesnt even hint it. There is, supposedly, a passage on some page that talks about a change in the stat effecting attributes to the stat. Fine then, but those are the spells that you will get if you were to rest 'right now', it has no effect on spells 'already prepared'. Why should it? It doesnt say that it does, there is no reason to even assume that it does.

Granted, and not in dispute.

With pyk around you might be surprised.

Exactly! This is why, when you get a bonus spell slot, you can't use it immediately, even though you get it immediately.

You dont get the slot, the slot is something that you would have if you were to get your spells right now. But you dont, you got them earlier. It doesnt matter what it is 'right now' only what it was 'then'. Just like with the skills, if I have already climbed the mountain (gained spells for the day) it doesnt matter if my stat drops, it has already done its good (or bad, if you had a long term deficit).

However, that does not apply to losing a slot. If the lowering of your spells per day occurs immediately, as I contend, then you must lose a prepared spell - otherwise you would have more spells per day than you are permitted.

You may contend, but can you prove it? It isnt 'more spells per day than permitted', when you prepared your spells that is what it was.

Another example, if I am a cleric and heal someone with cure spell X, and later that day they gain a level (or an item that grants effective levels for casting) I do not go back and give them more hp all of a sudden. The effect is past, it is done, finished. Might it happen again in the future? Sure, and at that time I will see what the current totals are and use those.

Where is your proof that changing the stat 'right now' changes anything about the spells you have prepared from 'back then'?

Just as a lowering of the Con score causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current hit points, a lowering of Intelligence (or level) causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current spells per day.

Or, lowering of the int does nothing to the spell slots. Much like changing int and skill points.

Since it is not laid out clearly then it could possibly go either way. The way I have proposed limits abuse in both directions. Why would you prefer the other way?

Why do you say that the con change takes precidence over the int change? Both are clearly laid out in the books. It doesnt even matter which type is 'more common' in this case because it could be either one! Until something concrete is shown then it is at best ambiguous.

Not on my page 155. I'll dig out my 3.0 PHB, though. It looks like the relevant text is the same, but you left a little bit out:

"Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."

So clearly, it's possible to lose a prepared spell even if you don't deliberately abandon it or cast it.

As I stated quite clearly above Along with stating that it was one of the possible ways I also stated that when looking through the book several things specifically say that you lose spells because of it. A glaring oversight in the least for stat damage. Looking over the entry for stat damage, penalty, and other such parts shows nothing about losing prepared spells at all! but it does make sure to state that you might not be able to cast your higher level slots. It is so very careful to say the latter, but completely silent on the former. This definately lends credence to changing a stat not having an immediate change on how many spells you have prepared.

But none of your quotes has anything to do with losing spell slots! You are making a logical leap there that is unwarranted.

I am? no, I am taking the raw and saying that since it is very clear that you prepare spells after a certain period, need to have the relevant abilities and stats then, and gain those slots then (which is all laid out in the quotes I gave) that it is perfectly logical to state the changing the stat later will not change prepared spells.

It is not a leap of logic, it isnt even a big step. They lead one to the other directly. There isnt any inconsistancy with what I have said and the rules, you would think that if it was against something then somewhere it would state otherwise. They are big books after all, maybe there is a hidden rule somewhere that states it, but I have looked now and then, havent found anything yet. Only more that helps out both sides at the same time, so in effect helping nothing.

And there's the logical leap again. You've talked again and again about how you can't use a spell slot until you've rested. But you haven't made a single connection to the alleged fact that you don't lose a spell slot until you've rested.

You only lose prepared spells from A) casting them, B) chooseing to forgo the spell, C) some special effect that states that you lose a spell slot. That is pretty direct from the quote I have made. If you rest for the night, and on the basis of your level and stat have X amount of spells, and you have X prepared then at that point you decide whether to drop any and replace them with another spell or an empty slot to be filled later. Again, where is the logical leap? It is all right there in the book! Those are the requirements that it lays out.

The crux of your argument seems to rest with the quote on page 155, which specifically allows that there may be other factors that cause a spell to be removed (and thus doesn't help your case any), and with the unwarranted assumption that because some abilities point out X, all abilities which have X must point it out.

Or, I am useing the wizards description (which I did), useing those several pages which clearly state out what happens and dont mention loseing spells to stat damage (which I did), mentioned that several parts of the dmg and phb that talk about stat damage never mention loseing spells but do mention not being able to cast higher level ones (again, done), and pointed out specifically that there are several forms of things that do get rid of prepared spells, but that they are all clearly laid out!

So, on the basis of both the phb and the dmg, with lots of information that never contridicts anything I have said, along with it being less abusive, I believe that the raw backs me up quite well.

Do you have any proof to the contrary? Any pages you would like to quote? Logical conundrums you would like to propose?

 

[Scion]

A bit more on the circular logic argument, it is simply not true. Merely stating a fact and then reversing it so as to provide a logical condition.

IF stat changing immediately changes your number of prepared spells THEN it will be stated 'somewhere'.

this is true, otherwise how would you even know it was a rule? Guessing?

The reversal is also true.

IF it is not stated anywhere THEN stat changing does not immediately change your number of prepared spells.

It is the same statement, not a circular logic chain.

as for the cat, if you define your cat to be anything that has four legs, whiskers, two eyes of a certain type, and is black and you see something that meets every criteria but is red then it isnt a cat. Very true, you will either have to expand your definition or create a new one for that creature. Strangely that is how it works in the real world anyway, it is very difficult to tell some creatures apart, and many of the lines are incredibly arbitrary. In everyday useage we tend to be much more allowing, but when it comes time to be technical then it may very well be that the definition of cat is incredibly exact and 99% of the creatures out there the rest of us would call 'cats' simply dont fall into that category for whatever purpose it is. It is all about how you define the terms.

In this case however, If it is a rule then it will be somewhere, otherwise it isnt a rule. Are some rules unwritten? not by the definition of rule that I am useing. The raw is very much 'written', hence the name. So if no where it is stated that stat damage makes you lose those spells then you simply dont, why would you even think otherwise?

That's a circular argument.

"Everything that kills memorized spells says it does."
"What about this?"
"Well, it doesn't say it kills memorized spells, so it doesn't."
"How do you know everything that kills memorized spells says so specifically?"
"Because some things that kill memorized spells say they do."

Sorry, no logic points there.

"All cats are black."
"What about that cat?"
"Well, it's not black, so it's not a cat."
"How do you know all cats are black?"
"Because some cats are black."

 

[drnuncheon]

The other side to this case is either just as circular, or neither is circular. As the other side assumes that because it is how they want it to work then it must be true, wonderful logic there

False. The 'other side', as you put it, works from impeccable logic.

"When a stat is changed, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly." By your own argument, if this were meant to have a delayed effect, it would state it. Since it does not clearly exempt it, it has an immediate effect. The bonus slot is gained or lost immediately. If it meant to be otherwise, it would say so specifically, wouldn't it? That's the argument you keep using.

You attempt to use the fact that the bonus slot gained cannot be used immediately as evidence for your case, but it is not so. It is simply the result of the interaction between the aforementioned rule and the rule that states that you must rest to 'prime' a slot to be used. Thus, one can say that prepared spells are lost, but not immediately gained, and still be perfectly consistent.

There is no indication that slots are assigned once, after resting, and are thereafter inviolate - in fact, the mechanics of level drain show us that this is definitely not so. If your assertion were correct, then a 20th level mage drained down to 1st level should retain all of his spells, because he was 20th level when he prepared them.

I am certain your objection to this will be that the energy drain rule is clearly spelled out in the books, while stat changes are not. I am sorry, but that is again a logical fallacy. Stating that some mammals are cats, and producing a cat as evidence, does not mean that only cats are mammals - yet that is just what you are trying to claim.

A bit more on the circular logic argument, it is simply not true. Merely stating a fact and then reversing it so as to provide a logical condition.

You must be very careful how you reverse a logical statement. "All cats are mammals" does not reverse to "all mammals are cats". You must also be certain that the axiom you begin with is accurate.

IF stat changing immediately changes your number of prepared spells THEN it will be stated 'somewhere'.

It is, the same place I've quoted the last dozen times.

"all attributes associated with that score" - bonus spells from an ability score are attributes associated with it, are they not? Well, they're listed with all the other attributes in the ability score description. If they were not attributes associated with the score, it would be stated 'somewhere'. Right?

So...if they, unlike other attibutes associated with that score, did not change immediately, it would be stated 'somewhere', by your own reasoning. Right? Otherwise how would we know it is a rule - guessing?

You are looking at a specifically denoted exception (skill points) and trying to make it the default rule.

I am looking at the default rule, failing to see a specifically denoted exception, and then considering the logical consequences of it.

So, the way I see it, you have two options:

One, show that spell slots are not an 'attribute associated with' the spellcasting stat, thus making the rule inapplicable.

Two, show that a 'delayed effect' is the general case, and 'immediate effect' is the exception.

Without one or both of those, I can't see how you can continue to argue your position.

J

 

[Scion]

False. The 'other side', as you put it, works from impeccable logic.

If by 'impeccable' you mean 'just as valid as yours' then sure, I can go with that. Until you can state something that contridicts either side then both sides are valid.

"When a stat is changed, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly." By your own argument, if this were meant to have a delayed effect, it would state it. Since it does not clearly exempt it, it has an immediate effect. The bonus slot is gained or lost immediately. If it meant to be otherwise, it would say so specifically, wouldn't it? That's the argument you keep using.

Delayed effect? It has an immediate effect, but not one that matters immediately. It changes how many you would get if you prepared 'right now', but you arent, so it doesnt matter.

it is changed, but not in a way that matters. Easy enough.

You attempt to use the fact that the bonus slot gained cannot be used immediately as evidence for your case, but it is not so. It is simply the result of the interaction between the aforementioned rule and the rule that states that you must rest to 'prime' a slot to be used. Thus, one can say that prepared spells are lost, but not immediately gained, and still be perfectly consistent.

If you say so, but just because both sides are entirely consistant does nothing damaging to my case. You want to use those slots immediately? Fine. But that is only your interpretation of the raw, and mine is different. Both are entirely consistant with the rules (assuming that yours is consistant with the rules of course) so there isnt much harm, so long as one knows that a choice was made.

Edit: The more that I think about your statement here the more it rings false. You have proven nothing that you lose slots. You have proven nothing about those slots at all. You have suppositions and assumptions, most/all of which may be false. Proof, you need proof. Mine comes from their silence, by not stating it is the way that you want it then it falls to mine. You keep what it does not make you lose. Just like you dont randomly lose d6 hp every 10 seconds that you stand on one leg. The rules dont state that it happens, so it doesnt.

There is no indication that slots are assigned once, after resting, and are thereafter inviolate - in fact, the mechanics of level drain show us that this is definitely not so. If your assertion were correct, then a 20th level mage drained down to 1st level should retain all of his spells, because he was 20th level when he prepared them.

No. After resting you get to prepare your spells. If, at a later time, your stat changes nothing says that you gain or lose available slots. You can try to interpret one passage as meaning that, but that does not make it mean what you think that it does.

If you are energy drained for 19 levels then you have lost 19 spells as well. If after all of that you manage to have some spells still prepared cool, but chances are very bad to have much useful left. But then this is a quirk of magic. Then again, if you arent of a high enough level you cant cast certain spells anyway, so I suppose they are waiting for you to get high enough level again. Not a big deal. It is an edge condition, and if you are trying to say that your way you wouldnt have the same problem then how? The next day nothing in the rules say that you will suddenly lose all spells that you didnt cast the day before.. in fact it specifically says you keep them unless you cast them, choose to forget them, or have them drained out of you by something that says so.

So, either way you would still have spells left, according to the raw. That is what it says. Sure it may not make sense, but then if the system explained everything we wouldnt be having this conversation. Then again, we probably shouldnt be anyway. Since it doesnt say that the stat change does anything to you then there is no reason to assume that it does.

I am certain your objection to this will be that the energy drain rule is clearly spelled out in the books, while stat changes are not. I am sorry, but that is again a logical fallacy. Stating that some mammals are cats, and producing a cat as evidence, does not mean that only cats are mammals - yet that is just what you are trying to claim.

It is not a logical fallicy. If it is a rule it would be stated somewhere.. That is indisputable, or if you choose to dispute it then you choose to use logic incorrectly. IF it is a rule, THEN it will be in the rulebook. If you cant find it, then it isnt a rule.

Your claim above is put together very poorly, strawman if you will. Allow me to explain

Cats are mammels. All right then, stated fact, I dont think many would disagree. if you want to negate this properly then you say, 'if it isnt a mammel, then it isnt a cat'. This is also true. My logical suppositions work in the same way, and they are perfectly valid.

So, as I explained before, my logical arguement is perfectly valid. If you wish to try to knock it down be my guest, it will require that you find a rule that states changeing a stat changes your prepared spells. if that cannot be found then either A) the raw agrees with me or B) we are both right. Either one works for me, it is a shame you cant say the same

You must be very careful how you reverse a logical statement. "All cats are mammals" does not reverse to "all mammals are cats". You must also be certain that the axiom you begin with is accurate.

I am useing the logical arguements perfectly, however you are butchering what I have said. I am unsure if it is deliberate because you have no actual arguements to present, or because of something else. I will assume for now that it is accidental though, please try to use them properly in the future.

All cats are mammels. The 'reverse' is effectively, IF it isnt a mammel, then it isnt a cat. this is true, just like all of my logical steps are true as well.

It is, the same place I've quoted the last dozen times.

"all attributes associated with that score" - bonus spells from an ability score are attributes associated with it, are they not? Well, they're listed with all the other attributes in the ability score description. If they were not attributes associated with the score, it would be stated 'somewhere'. Right?

You keep bringing this up, but it doesnt matter at all. I have said, repeatidly,
it does change something immediately, it is just that the change it makes doesnt matter in any way, shape or form until you try to regain spells.

No where does it say that this change causes you to 'lose' prepared spells. There isnt even a reason to assume it. The rules in other parts clearly state when you get spells and what makes them go away. Unless it is stated that it makes an actual change in the currently prepared spells (which it does not, not even close) then it is meaningless to this conversation.
So...if they, unlike other attibutes associated with that score, did not change immediately, it would be stated 'somewhere', by your own reasoning. Right? Otherwise how would we know it is a rule - guessing?

You are looking at a specifically denoted exception (skill points) and trying to make it the default rule.

I am looking at the default rule, failing to see a specifically denoted exception, and then considering the logical consequences of it.

Great, look for that default rule. When you find it written out somewhere give me a page number and a quote. We will see if it applies to this case or not.

The default currently is to not change them, because nothing says 'to' change them. Sounds like a great default to me. The default is to do nothing because that is easiest and the least likely to cause abuse.

So, the way I see it, you have two options:

Ahh, good, I have options. Somehow I think that I have more than two however.

One, show that spell slots are not an 'attribute associated with' the spellcasting stat, thus making the rule inapplicable.

What are you talking about? How many of my posts have you read? Somewhere around 0 it looks like.

I have said repeatidly that it is associated, just not in a way important to this topic. You have your level and stat, you prepare after you rest, if your stat changes during the day nothing special happens to your prepared slots. If you wish to claim otherwise then find a quote that says it. Otherwise you are simply making a guess, or basing it on one of those fancy 'unwritten rules'.

So, where is this rule you seem so bent up on that says you lose the slots? There isnt one. My quotes above have shown that you prepare spells after you rest, and none of those pages ever mentions anything about loseing those when the stat goes down.

Two, show that a 'delayed effect' is the general case, and 'immediate effect' is the exception.

You prepared your spells, at that time it was checked to see how many slots you got.

Later on, who cares? the rules dont say you lose the slots, so you dont.

The general rule you are looking for is the one I have been giving all along.

Without one or both of those, I can't see how you can continue to argue your position.

I have all of that and more. Until you come up with something that supports your claim in some way you have no legs to stand on.

You cannot say I am 'wrong' at this point without lieing. There is nothing to prove that I am wrong. prove it, if you can.

Until then though.. my way is perfectly consistant with every rule posted so far.

If you were meant to lose spells when your stat drops it would be said 'somewhere'. The rulebooks go out of their way to repeat many things about spells, but it is completely silent about loseing spells to stat damage. Even under all of the relevant passages about stat damage, or poison, or ability drain, penalties, and everything else.

if that doesnt shout at you that you could be wrong in your position then nothing will ever convince you.

 

[Scion]

If nothing else, you can think of it like preparing is temporary learning. And the default for that sort of thing comes from the int. Changes to int dont change your bonus skill points. There is your default if you like.

Dc is like hp, it changes immediately.
bonus spells currently prepared are like skill points, they wont be changing immediately.
spells from level are like hd (or base skill points), they dont change for hardly anything.

If you like this analogy then roll with it. If you dont then please find something that you do like. But, at least try to see where it is all coming from

 

[glass]

<snip> Just as a lowering of the Con score causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current hit points, a lowering of Intelligence (or level) causes an immediate lowering of both maximum and current spells per day. <snip>

But if you Con score goes back up, you get those hp back.

I am inclined to think bonus spell slots work the same way, if your stat drops you loose access to the extra prepared spells, but they are not emptied and become available again if your stat goes up again. The same should apply to a character with a ring of Wizardry who walks into and AMF or gets his ring dispelled.

This is, I belive, the synthesis of Scion's position and drnuncheon/pyk's.


glass.

EDIT: Capitalisation and punctuation

 

[drnuncheon]

Proof, you need proof. Mine comes from their silence, by not stating it is the way that you want it then it falls to mine.

That is where we disagree.

Proof, you need proof.

Silence is not proof.

That said, enough circling. We've presented our viewpoints, we're not putting forth anything new, anyone who is going to make up their mind already has, and anyone who hasn't has probably left out of boredom.

J

 

[Scion]

That is where we disagree.

Proof, you need proof.

Silence is not proof.

The lack of a rule is not proof enough that the rule does not exist? hmm..

Same right back at ya though, proof, you need proof.

Until then if the rule isnt stated then it isnt a rule.