Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6670968" data-attributes="member: 6790260">As others have noted above, partial preparation was an explicit thing for a long portion of the playtest--up until the final (public) packet, as I recall. The explicit statement is no longer there. This doesn't tell us much of anything, because it could have been removed simply to save space, or to indicate that that is no longer part of the rules. We have the aforementioned &quot;choose a number of spells equal to your &lt;casting&gt; modifier plus your &lt;casting class&gt; level,&quot; which has an implication of it needing to be that number, and no other. Yet the later &quot;if you are a 3rd level &lt;casting class&gt;, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level...&quot; language seems to not be so firm--it can be six spells but doesn't have to be.The final playtest packet even has exactly the same &quot;choose a number of spells equal to...&quot; language, while also specifically saying the player could choose to prepare others at a later time. (The exact number is different, 1+class level rather than mod+class level, but the &quot;choose&quot;/&quot;equal to&quot; part is identical.) So it could easily be that they just thought it wasn't a big deal to explicitly spell it out.Thus: The rules are silent. They do not explicitly speak--neither to forbid nor to permit. Precedent is useless, because it can be made to support both arguments. Despite this being a significant and fairly fundamental rule, it must be decided at the table. I, of course, would prefer a solid baseline which the DM could change as needed (rule zero) rather than neither baseline nor advice in either direction, but my feelings on the subject of &quot;DM <s>whim</s> empowerment!&quot; really aren't going to change any time soon.As for &quot;we'll never get a ruling,&quot; the Twitter feedback has answered at least a few open rules questions, so I don't think we should be nearly so pessimistic. We might not, or might not for a while, but something this simple and fundamental should be easy to answer. E.g. &quot;Can casters prepare some spells later in the day?&quot; Even with the twitter at-tags, that should be less than 2/3 the character limit--enough space for quoting *and* answering in a single tweet. This sort of thing seems like exactly what the twitter-rules-answers were made for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6670968, member: 6790260"] As others have noted above, partial preparation was an explicit thing for a long portion of the playtest--up until the final (public) packet, as I recall. The explicit statement is no longer there. This doesn't tell us much of anything, because it could have been removed simply to save space, or to indicate that that is no longer part of the rules. We have the aforementioned "choose a number of spells equal to your <casting> modifier plus your <casting class> level," which has an implication of it needing to be that number, and no other. Yet the later "if you are a 3rd level <casting class>, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level..." language seems to not be so firm--it [I]can[/I] be six spells but doesn't have to be. The final playtest packet even has exactly the same "choose a number of spells equal to..." language, while also specifically saying the player could choose to prepare others at a later time. (The exact number is different, 1+class level rather than mod+class level, but the "choose"/"equal to" part is identical.) So it could easily be that they just thought it wasn't a big deal to explicitly spell it out. Thus: The rules are silent. They do not explicitly speak--neither to forbid nor to permit. Precedent is useless, because it can be made to support both arguments. Despite this being a significant and fairly fundamental rule, it [I]must[/I] be decided at the table. I, of course, would prefer a solid baseline which the DM could change as needed (rule zero) rather than neither baseline nor advice in either direction, but my feelings on the subject of "DM [s]whim[/s] [I][B]empowerment![/B][/I]" really aren't going to change any time soon. As for "we'll never get a ruling," the Twitter feedback has answered at least a few open rules questions, so I don't think we should be nearly so pessimistic. We might not, or might not for a while, but something this simple and fundamental should be easy to answer. E.g. "Can casters prepare some spells later in the day?" Even with the twitter at-tags, that should be less than 2/3 the character limit--enough space for quoting *and* answering in a single tweet. This sort of thing seems like exactly what the twitter-rules-answers were [I]made[/I] for. [/QUOTE]

Verification