There are some cases where there are booleans, such as on Spells of Concentration which give options of yes and no.
I would consider that spells having V, S, or M are really also boolean operators, but you can only select that they are used, as opposed to not (Mr. Perkins recently was talking on twitter with someone about a character who may be mute and the issues with that. I could see that player wanting to search all spells without a verbal component. As it exists, one cannot)
Furthermore to that, the ability to add NOT to a few things would be beneficial. For example, maybe I want to filter on all monsters who do NOT have bludgeoning resistance.
I would agree with this. If i select V on the advance spell filter i would expect to see spells that are only verbal rather than spells that have verbal as well as others. Good suggestion.
There are some cases where there are booleans, such as on Spells of Concentration which give options of yes and no.
I would consider that spells having V, S, or M are really also boolean operators, but you can only select that they are used, as opposed to not (Mr. Perkins recently was talking on twitter with someone about a character who may be mute and the issues with that. I could see that player wanting to search all spells without a verbal component. As it exists, one cannot)
Furthermore to that, the ability to add NOT to a few things would be beneficial. For example, maybe I want to filter on all monsters who do NOT have bludgeoning resistance.
I would agree with this. If i select V on the advance spell filter i would expect to see spells that are only verbal rather than spells that have verbal as well as others. Good suggestion.
I agree with this as well, I just tried to do that very thing (everything with only a verbal component in this case) and could not.