It is reasonable to conclude that WotC intended for there to be only one spell available to Spirit Bards where they could use their Spirit Bard class feature to gain 1d6 to healing spell cast with their focus?
Yes, because it didn't just say healing spells, right? So it's not just one spell at all. And there may well be other healing spells even I just found one when I made a brief look. But yeah, still lots of spells benefit from it with either interpretation, so yes, reasonable.
I really don't think it is. Yeah, it applies damage to the rest of their combat spells with a material component by that logic... but why even mention healing spells at -all- if it's just for Regenerate?
Because at least it helps that one, and they may have other books in the future that add more spells, or there may be a way to add a material component in the future, or you might be multiclassed or have another way to add a different healing spell not on the list. There are lots of reasons to include healing spells but to not have many listed initially for that class.
Because even if you rule that Resurrection and similar magic is Healing it still wouldn't work with a focus 'cause it has an expensive spell component that must be provided.
And let's be clear you CANNOT use it, under either interpretation, with those other spells. Period. Unless you find a way to cast it without the expensive component, like with a Wish spell.
I'm not even gonna deal with your newest angle of trying to accuse me of strawmanning your argumentum ad populum. Literally the only things you included in your statement was an assumption about me as a person (Ad Hominem) and a comment on the popularity of Rules Videos for D&D.
In no way did I say or imply the popularity meant it was right. So knock it the F off already. You knew I didn't think it was right when I said it. I was saying it was evidence some meaningful chunk of people think those things are important to them. You were speaking for "everyone" or "everyone who is reasonable" and I was saying "no there are some reasonable people who disagree with you." There is no way that's an argumentum ad populum.
And as to your "Putting the Lie" thing, that's just another attack on me as a person rather than my argument. You are calling me a liar rather than addressing the claim.
Yes dude, because you in one sentence said anyone who disagrees with you must not be a reasonable person and in another said that's cool that others disagree with you good for them. Those are mutually exclusive statements. "Putting the lie" isn't calling you a liar, it's saying one of your statements cannot be accurate.
Mainly because you're ignoring the fact that the claim of no reasonable person and the statement that I'm happy people who enjoy semantics can enjoy their philosophy of language are two separate things. One does not negate the other.
It does though. I've already seen reasonable people disagree with your view on how this works. They are not into semantics, they're responding to something Jeremy Crawford started regarding those semantics previously.
Here, I'll connect them just for you: I don't think people who are hanging out in the Semantics Communities of the web arguing whether a Hotdog qualifies as a Taco because it's encased on three sides in a grain product sincerely and reasonably believe that WotC intended for the only healing spell to be affected by the additional d6 was Regenerate.
Well, you're wrong. Some genuinely think that's how it's intended to work. You don't have to agree with them, but stop acting like 1) they don't exist, or 2) they must be unreasonable if they have that view or 3) you know how they privately "really" think about it.
'Cause even those semantics loving language philosophers would be dissecting the meaning of the words and the ways they could be interpreted, not sincerely espousing the idea that it was only to be used for Regenerate.
They'd probably want an errata, too.
But they are sincere. And the primary reason they are sincere is because Crawford already surprised them in interpreting that "can cast semantic components ONLY if you're also holding a focus or material component with the same hand holding that thing" ruling he made. So they sincerely think Crawford is doing that again with this rule.
I can tell you I genuinely do not know how Crawford or the other designer who wrote this thinks about this issue. I hope he views it like I do, but the number of times I've been wrong on my guess once they do speak out on Twitter is frankly legion. We really, sincerely could all be wrong in assuming it works the way we've been saying we think it works. It has happened before. You can find threads here about other rules, before they are clarified, where there is unanimous or nearly unanimous view it works like X, and then there is a tweet from Crawford and we find out they intended it as Y instead.
