Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6671457" data-attributes="member: 6790260">*sigh* And here I thought maybe I'd be able to cut this whole thing off at the pass. I covered <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466032-Spell-Preparation-Leaving-Slots-Open&amp;p=6670968&amp;viewfull=1#post6670968" target="_blank">both of these arguments</a>, literally with the identical &quot;important text&quot; referenced. Both of them are valid interpretations of that section, and since neither one is an explicit statement, it is up to personal preference (DM <s>whim</s> empowerment!) which implication you favor; there are perfectly valid arguments for ignoring the potential implications of both lines. (Specifically, to defuse Zarathustran's argument, there was no &quot;up to&quot; in the playtest docs, yet those documents explicitly stated that you could prepare some later in the day; and to defuse Jrowland's argument, the removal of the explicit &quot;you can prepare some later in the day&quot; text implies that that is no longer a valid interpretation.)The text, as I said, is silent. It does not explicitly forbid, nor does it explicitly permit. Implication is an incredibly unreliable guide, and perfectly rational arguments can be made to justify both perspectives. The only factor which can conclusively decide this case, despite it being rather important to play and balance, is DM preference......which means I think, Celtavian, if you like the &quot;prepare as needed, up to maximum&quot; interpretation, go with it. When the rules are silent, even in an unfortunately important area, it's up to you (as DM) to figure it out. It sounds to me like you already have figured out what you want, so make the unilateral decision and be done with it. If, at a later time, you find that that choice results in things you didn't want, amend your decision. There is no shame in deciding that a prior decision was unwise and trying to correct it, as long as it's all done above board....are we reading the same thread? The rather vehement and repeated proclamation that this is &quot;house ruling&quot; and &quot;obviously&quot; goes against the intent of the rules doesn't strike me as a climate of &quot;do what you want, there is no right answer.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6671457, member: 6790260"] *sigh* And here I thought maybe I'd be able to cut this whole thing off at the pass. I covered [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466032-Spell-Preparation-Leaving-Slots-Open&p=6670968&viewfull=1#post6670968"]both of these arguments[/URL], literally with the identical "important text" referenced. Both of them are valid interpretations of that section, and since neither one is an explicit statement, it is up to personal preference (DM [s]whim[/s] [I]empowerment![/I]) which implication you favor; there are perfectly valid arguments for ignoring the potential implications of both lines. (Specifically, to defuse Zarathustran's argument, there was no "up to" in the playtest docs, yet those documents [I]explicitly[/I] stated that you could prepare some later in the day; and to defuse Jrowland's argument, the [I]removal[/I] of the explicit "you can prepare some later in the day" text implies that that is no longer a valid interpretation.) The text, as I said, is silent. It does not explicitly forbid, nor does it explicitly permit. Implication is an incredibly unreliable guide, and perfectly rational arguments can be made to justify both perspectives. The only factor which can conclusively decide this case, despite it being rather important to play and balance, is DM preference... ...which means I think, Celtavian, if [I]you[/I] like the "prepare as needed, up to maximum" interpretation, go with it. When the rules are silent, even in an unfortunately important area, it's up to you (as DM) to figure it out. It sounds to me like you already have figured out what you want, so make the unilateral decision and be done with it. If, at a later time, you find that that choice results in things you didn't want, amend your decision. There is no shame in deciding that a prior decision was unwise and trying to correct it, as long as it's all done above board. ...are we reading the same thread? The rather vehement and repeated proclamation that this is "house ruling" and "obviously" goes against the intent of the rules doesn't strike me as a climate of "do what you want, there is no right answer." [/QUOTE]

Verification