Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1488260" data-attributes="member: 5777">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  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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.With pyk around you might be surprised.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).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'? 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.As I stated quite clearly above <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=";)" /> 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.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.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.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? <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification