Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Limits on Domain Spells?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4700108" data-attributes="member: 5122"><p>Sure it is.</p><p></p><p>I agree. It would be nice if the rules said that. Instead, you had to.</p><p></p><p>Right. Which it does.</p><p></p><p><em>Earthquake</em> is a seventh-level domain spell.</p><p></p><p>As a domain spell, the cleric cannot prepare it in additional slots <em>unless it is on the cleric list</em>. Which it is.</p><p></p><p>Note that at no point does <em>earthquake</em> stop being a seventh-level domain spell.</p><p></p><p>So it is a seventh-level domain spell, that, because it is on the cleric spell list, can be prepared in other slots. Since it's a seventh-level spell, those other slots can be seventh-level slots.</p><p></p><p>That is the counter-argument, and by the SRD, so far as I can tell, it holds up fine.</p><p></p><p>As I've said, I agree with the other argument, but that doesn't make the above argument logically invalid. The issue is that the rules introduce an exception without properly limiting the scope of the exception. We can induce that the exception is intended to be limited, but we cannot deduce that. (At least not by the SRD. I <em>still</em> haven't checked the PHB.)</p><p></p><p>"A cleric spell that appears as a lower-level domain spell can only be prepared, at that lower level, in the cleric's domain slot." Or, to paraphrase how you put it, "A domain spell that also appears on the cleric list can be prepared in other slots under the normal rules."</p><p></p><p>That's a statement, not a restatement, because the rules are otherwise ambiguous. And it would take hundreds of such clarifications to amount to any appreciable additional page count, even assuming the section couldn't have been written more accurately and concisely in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Of course, I realize at this point nobody will be able to admit it's ambiguous, so I've wasted my time typing this. I wish I'd thought of that 10 minutes ago.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4700108, member: 5122"] Sure it is. I agree. It would be nice if the rules said that. Instead, you had to. Right. Which it does. [I]Earthquake[/I] is a seventh-level domain spell. As a domain spell, the cleric cannot prepare it in additional slots [I]unless it is on the cleric list[/I]. Which it is. Note that at no point does [I]earthquake[/I] stop being a seventh-level domain spell. So it is a seventh-level domain spell, that, because it is on the cleric spell list, can be prepared in other slots. Since it's a seventh-level spell, those other slots can be seventh-level slots. That is the counter-argument, and by the SRD, so far as I can tell, it holds up fine. As I've said, I agree with the other argument, but that doesn't make the above argument logically invalid. The issue is that the rules introduce an exception without properly limiting the scope of the exception. We can induce that the exception is intended to be limited, but we cannot deduce that. (At least not by the SRD. I [I]still[/I] haven't checked the PHB.) "A cleric spell that appears as a lower-level domain spell can only be prepared, at that lower level, in the cleric's domain slot." Or, to paraphrase how you put it, "A domain spell that also appears on the cleric list can be prepared in other slots under the normal rules." That's a statement, not a restatement, because the rules are otherwise ambiguous. And it would take hundreds of such clarifications to amount to any appreciable additional page count, even assuming the section couldn't have been written more accurately and concisely in the first place. Of course, I realize at this point nobody will be able to admit it's ambiguous, so I've wasted my time typing this. I wish I'd thought of that 10 minutes ago. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Limits on Domain Spells?
Top