You mean, you, who don't understand the implementation, don't realize you don't NEED to take Agonizing Blast more than once, you just go in and manually choose which one(s) you want it to affect or not.
The are updating the 2014 subclasses to have the spells always prepared, you just are in too much of a rush to think that you know better than WotC, and decide that, as I said, you presume on the side of permission, not restriction.
AND IT ISN'T AT YOUR TABLE... it is so everyone has a proper reference to know that the Official Ruling is that it is okay, and the restriction is the DM decision at the table. You are trying to spread an unnecessary restriction as the Official Rules, I am trying to make sure that people are educated that RAI is not the restriction.
Updates to add features take time, the 2024 Classes and Subclasses were given priority over updating 2014, which is why Circle of the Moon Druid DOES have its Circle Spells listed as such, why Pact of the Chain says it is a Magic Action and not an Hour to cast Find Familiar, and why all things listed on 2024 Classes are RULES AS INTENDED, as they have had their implementation handled, but 2014 things are lower priority, and still are being updated...
You mean, you, who don't understand the implementation, don't realize you don't NEED to take Agonizing Blast more than once, you just go in and manually choose which one(s) you want it to affect or not.
I never said you had to take it more than once. My point was that the tool doesn't allow you to take it more than once. By your logic, since this tool is the "official implementation", you're therefore not allowed to take it more than once, even though the actual rules explicitly say that you can. It seems like you're having trouble following this example, so let me just say it very plainly one more time: D&D Beyond's character builder is not the rules, and the fact that it allows you to do something does not mean that the rules allow you to do that thing, nor does the fact that it doesn't allow you to do something mean that the rules don't allow you to do that thing.
AND IT ISN'T AT YOUR TABLE... it is so everyone has a proper reference to know that the Official Ruling is that it is okay, and the restriction is the DM decision at the table. You are trying to spread an unnecessary restriction as the Official Rules, I am trying to make sure that people are educated that RAI is not the restriction.
Well, again, the official rule is that it isn't okay; the feature doesn't say the spell is prepared, so it isn't prepared. You're speculating that the intention behind the rule is something else. It's totally fine to speculate about these things, but your speculations are not the official rules just because you think you're right about them. It's totally fine to play in a way that doesn't follow the rules exactly, but your house rules are not the official rules just because you really want them to be.
TrueGeminiDragon and Wagnarokkr, could you please end this conversation? I get notified of new additions on my post, but it seems to be getting more and more away from the actual question and going into deeper things about how each of you believes one should go about finding what the rules are, and at this point I get the feeling that you two are just mostly repeating yourselves (although tbh, I couldn't be bothered to read either of your latest couple of replies because they're long winding and not all that relevant to me).
I think it's clear how each of you feels about the issue, you disagree, and you don't seem to be be getting any closer to agreement, so I think there's a point (and I think we're already past it tbh, but better late than never) where you should just agree to disagree and move on.
Others who have this question can see both of your takes on the actual question and more than enough detail from each of you about your underlying ideas of how you come to such conclusions, and those others can make up their own minds, and regardless of how they interpret it, they can houserule it to play it differently if they enjoy it better in a way they believe aren't the official rulings.
If either of you, or anyone else, actually has something new to add in regards to what they believe the answer is, I invite them to contribute, but let's try to keep the sidetracking and repetition here to a minimum. If this really is something you both wish to explore together in greater detail, I'd like to ask you to make a post of your own where you can explore this meta topic of how one draws conclusions about what the official rules are to be interpreted to be.
You mean, you, who don't understand the implementation, don't realize you don't NEED to take Agonizing Blast more than once, you just go in and manually choose which one(s) you want it to affect or not.
The are updating the 2014 subclasses to have the spells always prepared, you just are in too much of a rush to think that you know better than WotC, and decide that, as I said, you presume on the side of permission, not restriction.
AND IT ISN'T AT YOUR TABLE... it is so everyone has a proper reference to know that the Official Ruling is that it is okay, and the restriction is the DM decision at the table. You are trying to spread an unnecessary restriction as the Official Rules, I am trying to make sure that people are educated that RAI is not the restriction.
Updates to add features take time, the 2024 Classes and Subclasses were given priority over updating 2014, which is why Circle of the Moon Druid DOES have its Circle Spells listed as such, why Pact of the Chain says it is a Magic Action and not an Hour to cast Find Familiar, and why all things listed on 2024 Classes are RULES AS INTENDED, as they have had their implementation handled, but 2014 things are lower priority, and still are being updated...
I never said you had to take it more than once. My point was that the tool doesn't allow you to take it more than once. By your logic, since this tool is the "official implementation", you're therefore not allowed to take it more than once, even though the actual rules explicitly say that you can. It seems like you're having trouble following this example, so let me just say it very plainly one more time: D&D Beyond's character builder is not the rules, and the fact that it allows you to do something does not mean that the rules allow you to do that thing, nor does the fact that it doesn't allow you to do something mean that the rules don't allow you to do that thing.
Well, again, the official rule is that it isn't okay; the feature doesn't say the spell is prepared, so it isn't prepared. You're speculating that the intention behind the rule is something else. It's totally fine to speculate about these things, but your speculations are not the official rules just because you think you're right about them. It's totally fine to play in a way that doesn't follow the rules exactly, but your house rules are not the official rules just because you really want them to be.
pronouns: he/she/they
TrueGeminiDragon and Wagnarokkr, could you please end this conversation? I get notified of new additions on my post, but it seems to be getting more and more away from the actual question and going into deeper things about how each of you believes one should go about finding what the rules are, and at this point I get the feeling that you two are just mostly repeating yourselves (although tbh, I couldn't be bothered to read either of your latest couple of replies because they're long winding and not all that relevant to me).
I think it's clear how each of you feels about the issue, you disagree, and you don't seem to be be getting any closer to agreement, so I think there's a point (and I think we're already past it tbh, but better late than never) where you should just agree to disagree and move on.
Others who have this question can see both of your takes on the actual question and more than enough detail from each of you about your underlying ideas of how you come to such conclusions, and those others can make up their own minds, and regardless of how they interpret it, they can houserule it to play it differently if they enjoy it better in a way they believe aren't the official rulings.
If either of you, or anyone else, actually has something new to add in regards to what they believe the answer is, I invite them to contribute, but let's try to keep the sidetracking and repetition here to a minimum. If this really is something you both wish to explore together in greater detail, I'd like to ask you to make a post of your own where you can explore this meta topic of how one draws conclusions about what the official rules are to be interpreted to be.
You’re absolutely right. I think we’re done here.
pronouns: he/she/they