Enhanced Stats and Spells

[Scion]

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.

Good enough glass glad you are having fun. Sounds like you have a plan there, roll with it!

 

[drnuncheon]

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

It is proof.

The difference is where we believe the default is, and thus, what rule needs to exist to be considered 'proof'.

J

 

[Scion]

It is proof.

The difference is where we believe the default is, and thus, what rule needs to exist to be considered 'proof'.

Sure, but saying that means that you are saying that both ways (or all three) are possible according to the raw.

 

[drnuncheon]

Sure, but saying that means that you are saying that both ways (or all three) are possible according to the raw.

Only if you believe that the default case is "make it up yourself".

J

 

[Scion]

Only if you believe that the default case is "make it up yourself".

Now where is that rolling eyes icon.

You have shown zero proof that I am wrong. I have shown that it is possible within the rules.

which means that if you mean, 'make it up yourself' as 'playing by the raw', which I am doing, then sure. Otherwise your insulting tone is not needed, nor warrented.

Until you have actual proof claiming that people who disagree with your interpretation are 'making up new rules' is just absurd.

If it is a rule then it would be written.

If it isnt written then it isnt a rule.

If it is a cat then it is a mammal.

If it isnt a mammal then it isnt a cat.

 

[drnuncheon]

You have shown zero proof that I am wrong.

That is your belief, based on the rules that you have made up. You haven't shown any proof for them, either, but you conveniently forget that fact.

I have shown that it is possible within the rules.

No, you've shown that if spell slots are determined at resting time and are fixed and involate other than that, then your interpretation is correct.

Unfortunately, that's a mighty big if.

Your only evidence that it might work that way is that skill points don't go away when Int drops...which isn't really evidence at all, since skill points aren't spell slots, and since the spell slots do eventually go away, even under your interpretation, unlike the skill points.

You're right, though. The book doesn't clearly come out and say "spell slots are lost immediately." It says that everything is lost except for skill points, and somehow I got the impression that 'everything' included spell slots, when clearly spell slots ought to be counted as skill points.

Until tomorrow morning, when they're not anymore.

Of course the simplest and most logical solution is that, rather than behaving like everything else - or even behaving like the sole exception to the rule - they behave in a third way which is never specifically described anywhere.

Can't believe how I didn't see that earlier.

J
...the rolleyes icon was hospitalized for severe eyestrain...

 

[Scion]

That is your belief, based on the rules that you have made up. You haven't shown any proof for them, either, but you conveniently forget that fact.

Whatever you say, of course it is your belief that I am wrong, no matter how wrong your belief is. I didnt make it up, it is clearly stated. Just because you wish to interpet it differently ::shrugs:: do as you will, but just because you interpret it different doesnt make you right. Not by a long shot.

As for the rest, whatever again. I have shown it to be the case above, or at least be a very likely interpretation of what is going on. Specifically it does state when you get your spells, it does not state that you lose spells for stat change, and I dont care if you like the anology about int or not, it just doesnt matter.

So play the way you will, I will play mine. I will play by the raw just fine, with what I have said above all being true.

You may of course think that it isnt, and try to support your claim by misquoting or faulty logic, but that doesnt prove your point.

The fact is that you have no real proof, and that you simply dont like what I have said. Sure, go for it, but again, that doesnt make you right nor does it make me wrong.

So find something in the rulebooks to support your claims, or make up your own rules as you wish. Luckily my way goes along with the raw completely.

Plus, the simplest way to do it is the way I have been saying. There are less abuses, less bookeeping, and it follows the raw. Good enough. If you wish to risk the abuse and worry about the bookeeping be my guest, but I wont go with that insanity.

Do try to stop misquoting me and the text though, that is just rude. You talk about me 'making things up', but all of mine comes from the book. Your misquoting is just tiresome.

 

[Scion]

No, you've shown that if spell slots are determined at resting time and are fixed and involate other than that, then your interpretation is correct.

Unfortunately, that's a mighty big if.

Or, it is what the text says. Still need that rolling eyes icon.

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.

hey look, you have to prepare them then. Isnt that cool. Go ahead and look through the book for something that contradicts me, I have given you portions of the book that prove my statements true. Too bad you cant truthfully say the same.

 

[drnuncheon]

I didnt make it up, it is clearly stated.

If it's so clearly stated, why do so many people disagree with you at such length?

If it's so clearly stated, why do you have to rely on dozens of quotes from the PHB, which don't state it clearly, and don't add up to stating it clearly either? (I have to rely on them because you refuse to acknowledge the one quote that does state it clearly.)

How can you claim it's clearly stated when, according to you, it doesn't work like any other effect of stat loss? You still haven't answered that one. Nothing else has this peculiar delayed effect that you claim is "clearly stated".

Anyway, I'm pretty much done here until and unless you get some better arguments.

J

 

[Scion]

If it's so clearly stated, why do so many people disagree with you at such length?

Who knows? You tell me, why do you refuse to see? Take the way I am saying, put it through all of the rules, see if there is any logical inconsistancy. So far there have been none. Which means that, by the raw, it is correct.

If it's so clearly stated, why do you have to rely on dozens of quotes from the PHB, which don't state it clearly, and don't add up to stating it clearly either? (I have to rely on them because you refuse to acknowledge the one quote that does state it clearly.)

I have used so many in order to point out how many times it states what I have said. But it isnt very many, it is simply the same two pages over and over again. I have quoted most of those two pages which directly talk about how the caster gets/loses his spells. If you wish to rely on a rule that has no bearing, and that I have already shown to be useless in this case several times, that is your own business. But dont hold it up as your talisman, it doesnt say anything useful for the topic.

If you wish to be irrelevant like that then I will start quoting text from the aoo's section and saying that it proves my point. That way we are both being irrelevant.

How can you claim it's clearly stated when, according to you, it doesn't work like any other effect of stat loss? You still haven't answered that one. Nothing else has this peculiar delayed effect that you claim is "clearly stated".

Here we go again, you misquoting and misrepresenting. But I will say it another time, just in case you will read it this time.

It changes your modifier and the amount of bonus spells you get in a day 'if you were prepareing right now'. The quotes above tell how and when this sort of thing happens, and it is after resting, during the preperation time. You do not gain them at any other time, so why should you lose them at any other time? No reason except for whatever you feel like imposing on the ruleset yourself.

Clearly stated is just that. You rest, you regain your slots, you move on. No where does it state that you lose those slots by having your stat changed. So, in absence of your all powerful rule, you dont lose them. Just like you dont lose d6 hp/round of standing on one foot. The rules dont say that you do. Why you are trying to impose something that isnt there is anyones guess, but since it isnt necissary, and can lead to abuse, why bother?

Anyway, I'm pretty much done here until and unless you get some better arguments.

Other than it doesnt say anywhere that the rules work the way you say and that you are attempting to impose conditions that dont exist? Fine then. Come back whenever you have a real arguement, or can find something that actually proves your point.

Until then though, I'll just play by the raw.