Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7178294" data-attributes="member: 6857506">The original discussion seems sort of bizarre and pointless considering that the reply you got says &quot;the spell has only 1 caster&quot;, and then promptly goes on to describe two casters.&nbsp; I mean, yes, the semantics of &quot;The spell has two casters.&quot; is ambiguous.&nbsp; It can be clarified by context or subsequent explanation.&nbsp; Why is this a discussion?That seems to sum up the situation with respect to the original discussion nicely.But the discussion this has spawned is interesting.Yes, in addition to things others have mentioned, there is one probably infrequent case that might bear some thought.Slot level, spell save DC, and spell attack bonus are just numbers, so those seem pretty clear.&nbsp; But what are we to make of &quot;spellcasting ability of the original caster&quot;?If &quot;spellcasting ability of the original caster&quot; literally means an &quot;ability&quot; (WIS, CHA, etc.) then the &quot;spellcasting ability modifier&quot; for Spiritual Weapon will be the ability modifier that the ring user has for the ability that the original caster used to cast the spell into the ring.OTOH, if &quot;spellcasting ability of the original caster&quot; was intended to mean &quot;spellcasting ability score of the original caster&quot;, then the &quot;spellcasting ability modifier&quot; will be the original caster's ability modifier.I guess my bet is that the former is RAI since everywhere that I can think of &quot;spellcasting ability&quot; refers to an ability, not an ability score, and they could have said &quot;ability score&quot; or even &quot;ability modifier&quot; if that is what they meant.&nbsp; Although it does produce sort of a weird mash-up of the abilities of the original caster and the ring user.Opinions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7178294, member: 6857506"] The original discussion seems sort of bizarre and pointless considering that the reply you got says "the spell has only 1 caster", and then promptly goes on to describe two casters. I mean, yes, the semantics of "The spell has two casters." is ambiguous. It can be clarified by context or subsequent explanation. Why is this a discussion? That seems to sum up the situation with respect to the original discussion nicely. But the discussion this has spawned is interesting. Yes, in addition to things others have mentioned, there is one probably infrequent case that might bear some thought. Slot level, spell save DC, and spell attack bonus are just numbers, so those seem pretty clear. But what are we to make of "spellcasting ability of the original caster"? If "spellcasting ability of the original caster" literally means an "ability" (WIS, CHA, etc.) then the "spellcasting ability modifier" for [I]Spiritual Weapon[/I] will be the ability modifier that the ring user has for the ability that the original caster used to cast the spell into the ring. OTOH, if "spellcasting ability of the original caster" was intended to mean "spellcasting ability [I]score [/I]of the original caster", then the "spellcasting ability modifier" will be the original caster's ability modifier. I guess my bet is that the former is RAI since everywhere that I can think of "spellcasting ability" refers to an ability, not an ability score, and they could have said "ability score" or even "ability modifier" if that is what they meant. Although it does produce sort of a weird mash-up of the abilities of the original caster and the ring user. Opinions? [/QUOTE]

Verification