Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell focus needs an errated rule
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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8282247" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8282247, member: 2525"] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell focus needs an errated rule
Top