Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6670922" data-attributes="member: 12731">Celtavian is certainly free to add this rule to his own game. The only thing you'd think worth debating here is whether there's any official support for such a rule.But that's an open and shut case: no, the rules does not support it.What's really left to discuss is the broader issue - how much do the rules need to &quot;explicitly disallow&quot; something for that door to be clearly and unequivocally shut? And my answer is clear: this assumption is clearly unreasonable. The rules cannot discuss everything they aren't, it would make for a 10000 page rulebook.Likewise, you shouldn't and you can't hide behind &quot;there's no definite ruling either way yet&quot;. The probably never will. And still, it should be clear as day that the rules don't support it and wasn't meant to.This is where your ruleslawer-fu fails you. This stuff will never be part of 5e. Back to your original question.NO most people don't read the rules to allow partial preparation. In fact, the rules say in a reasonably simple language how you're supposed to do it. That is all you get in 5e. There is no leeway to contort this language. You simply prepare the specified number of spells, and that's it.This in no way means I'm against your idea of partial preparation. Heck, it might even be a good idea! (not to mention part of the playtest, apparently)But you're taking a dark path if you can't houserule this without squeezing out some kind of &quot;official support&quot; out of the PHB. Don't go there.Not only is there no support to be had, but the entire notion is 3e-era thinking that simply won't make you happy in this edition.Heartfelt wishes, Zapp</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6670922, member: 12731"] Celtavian is certainly free to add this rule to his own game. The only thing you'd think worth debating here is whether there's any official support for such a rule. But that's an open and shut case: no, the rules does not support it. What's really left to discuss is the broader issue - how much do the rules need to "explicitly disallow" something for that door to be clearly and unequivocally shut? And my answer is clear: this assumption is clearly unreasonable. The rules cannot discuss everything they aren't, it would make for a 10000 page rulebook. Likewise, you shouldn't and you can't hide behind "there's no definite ruling either way yet". The probably never will. And still, it should be clear as day that the rules don't support it and wasn't meant to. This is where your ruleslawer-fu fails you. This stuff will never be part of 5e. Back to your original question. NO most people don't read the rules to allow partial preparation. In fact, the rules say in a reasonably simple language how you're supposed to do it. That is all you get in 5e. There is no leeway to contort this language. You simply prepare the specified number of spells, and that's it. This in no way means I'm against your idea of partial preparation. Heck, it might even be a good idea! (not to mention part of the playtest, apparently) But you're taking a dark path if you can't houserule this without squeezing out some kind of "official support" out of the PHB. Don't go there. Not only is there no support to be had, but the entire notion is 3e-era thinking that simply won't make you happy in this edition. Heartfelt wishes, Zapp [/QUOTE]

Verification