Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="juggerulez" data-source="post: 6728012" data-attributes="member: 98250">I couldn't disagree more.I'm not making any personal statement, I'm interpreting the rule as it is, by giving you a tangible explanation of why the rule is flawed while also providing you the means to help you understand my interpretation.I'm not filling the gap by my own invent or my own convenience, I'm stating that there is a baseline that must be respected (which are the spellcasting mechanics) and the "3rd option" you suggested is inconsistent with the rest of the manuals, especially if based on the allegedly miswrote description itself, thus if we must stick to those two alternatives, while the innate spellcasting is specified as being "innate spellcasting" in any of the statements it appears, traditional spellcasting is more implicit, mentioning the involvement of spell slots to regulate the behaviour of spell casting.  SO if this is what was really meant to be the truth, why there is no mentioning of a spell slot on the feat description? perhaps it is a new form of "spell-like ability"? If so, why there is no mention whatsoever in any other context of such a thing?Is it a form of "innate spell casting"? then why wasn't it specified since they felt the urge to specify it in any other situation? Is it an oversight? If so, why didn't they fix it in the Errata? was it detected too late or was it meant to stay removed instead? to what purpose then? avoid exploitation? Was it Aliens?In conclusion: I've shown you that the presence of a spell slot (by mechanics) that was removed or unmentioned (by description) that is consistent with the rest of the RAW and that should be there, but it isn't and I'd love to understand why <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"no DM overruling" is an expedient to avoid those comments such as "I will/won't allow it as DM" that completely miss the point of the debate since we're speaking about written rules and not personal opinions.</blockquote>

Verification