it is certainly fair to say "your wrong" when you aren't right. No need to appeal to authority when the rules of the system are consistent. No need to ask Maxwell about how to understand an electric field.
It is certainly possible to be confused or not understand, but the solution to that isn't some other interpretation, it is understanding the words that are there.
it is certainly fair to say "your wrong" when you aren't right. No need to appeal to authority when the rules of the system are consistent. No need to ask Maxwell about how to understand an electric field.
It is certainly possible to be confused or not understand, but the solution to that isn't some other interpretation, it is understanding the words that are there.
So then I can put you down as a 'yes' for the Sneak Attack/Witchbolt question, right?
[...] I am not, in any way, making any claims about fairness or balance. Implying that I had is a strawman argument (intentionally or otherwise) that distracts from the fact that you want to use the argument 'this is the text', but don't want to admit that it leads to issues such as Sneak Attack with Witchbolt. [...]
I read your reply here and I still don't understand how Sneak Attack could be confused as usable with Witch Bolt.
You're not attacking using your Bard's spellcasting focus, you're using it to meet the requirements for casting the spell. That precedes the spell's effects, which, in this case, include the beam of crackling energy and the moment you finally make the attack roll.
There is no confusion.
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if . . . the attack uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon.
Attacking with the weapon isn't a requirement, according to what is written. All that is required is that the attack uses a Finesse or Ranged weapon. In this case, you are making a Spell Attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus.
Hitting with an attack roll using a Finesse or a Ranged weapon is the requirement, something you're not doing when using Witch Bolt because you're hitting with the beam.
You're not making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus when casting a spell, you're using the Finesse weapon as a focus as a substitution for the Material component. Nothing more.
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them, a spellcaster can use a Component Pouch (see chapter 6) instead of providing the materials specified in the spell, or the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution.
A spell's components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell. And as I said, they precede the effect of a spell.
Now, for clarity, I am not honestly advocating that this should be allowed. I am trying to demonstrate that focusing on one specific section of the text, ignoring other factors (such as possible intent), and insisting that not following that interpretation means people are 'home-brewing' is a flawed methodology.
If what you're saying is true, then honestly, I don't think it's good to leave these kinds of examples on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
it is certainly fair to say "your wrong" when you aren't right. No need to appeal to authority when the rules of the system are consistent. No need to ask Maxwell about how to understand an electric field.
It is certainly possible to be confused or not understand, but the solution to that isn't some other interpretation, it is understanding the words that are there.
So then I can put you down as a 'yes' for the Sneak Attack/Witchbolt question, right?
I didn't say anything in this thread regarding sneak attack because this argument is a false equivalence as well as being completely off topic (near to non-constructive posting).
The question here is whether in ASI, "or another feat of your choice for which you qualify" means actually that only the prerequisite of the feat matters or that there is some other rule governing it that no one can adequately provide.
it is certainly fair to say "your wrong" when you aren't right. No need to appeal to authority when the rules of the system are consistent. No need to ask Maxwell about how to understand an electric field.
It is certainly possible to be confused or not understand, but the solution to that isn't some other interpretation, it is understanding the words that are there.
So then I can put you down as a 'yes' for the Sneak Attack/Witchbolt question, right?
I didn't say anything in this thread regarding sneak attack because this argument is a false equivalence as well as being completely off topic (near to non-constructive posting).
The question here is whether in ASI, "or another feat of your choice for which you qualify" means actually that only the prerequisite of the feat matters or that there is some other rule governing it that no one can adequately provide.
It is not a false equivalency. You are trying to maintain a strict 'RAW without possibility of implication' stance. It is a counter to that stance by showing the problems arising from it. It is, in fact, a logical argument called 'reductio ad absurdum'.
People have adequately provided an implied rule (the fact that every single class has a level 19 feature for Epic Boon). For the second time, I have provided it. Your refusal to admit that does not change the fact.
N.B., there is a significant difference between 'adequately provide' and 'provide an adequate rule'. 'Adequately provide' means that they have pointed you to their source so that it is not difficult for you to find. 'Provide an adequate rule' means you reject their interpretation (i.e. you do not feel that the feature is implying a rule).
Now, you are entirely free to reject that interpretation. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is for you to act like it hasn't happened, which you have done repeatedly.
No, you aren't showing the problems with my stance, you are avoiding the ones I point out in the one you present. My stance is that the text of the rule, and not its name, describes what it does, level means character level unless specified, and the prerequisite is what allows you to qualify for a feat. All of those are from the text, sure, but they are not the "text is all there is". They are individual distinct thoughts. You provided a counter example where there isn't clarity on what the definitions of terms are. It isn't the same, and you probably know it. I mean, you are just name calling my argument, not addressing it.
N.B I meant "adequately provide" judging from your definitions. You said it yourself, you only provided the implication of a rule, not any words from the rules describing the way feats work.
The rule you provided says that you gain an epic boon or another feat you qualify. Nothing in it precludes you from gaining an epic boon from other means,, such as an ASI if you qualify for it by other means. Nothing in it unlocks epic boons. And nothing prevents a 10/10 MC character from gaining them at 20th level as a form of character advancement.
And again per your reductio ad absurdum, where is the rule, implied or otherwise, that you can take a general feat with an ASI? Again, this is where I asked for a description of some rule (adequate or otherwise) that is consistent with the view of epic boons being unlocked.
Hitting with an attack roll using a Finesse or a Ranged weapon is the requirement, something you're not doing when using Witch Bolt because you're hitting with the beam.
If I take the stance of 'no implications,' it doesn't matter that I am hitting with the beam. It is not required to hit with a weapon, just to 'use' it.
You're not making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus when casting a spell, you're using the Finesse weapon as a focus as a substitution for the Material component. Nothing more.
Yes, yes I am. I am "making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus (to substitute for the Material component) when casting a spell." You even admit that I am using it. You try to act like the specific use doesn't count, but nothing is written supporting that.
If what you're saying is true, then honestly, I don't think it's good to leave these kinds of examples on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
There is a risk involved in it being taken out of context, so I try to clarify that I am only using the argument to illustrate the flaws in the position 'implication does not matter' that some people are trying to take.
If there are any statements I made where I have not made that clear, please point them out to me and I will edit them to clarify. I admit that people could still snip around the clarification to misrepresent the statements, but people can edit the HTML and create quotes that never even existed, so a certain level of risk of people acting in bad faith always exists (and just to clarify, I am not accusing you of such a thing. I believe you are absolutely acting in good faith).
Anyone recall if there anything in the Dungeon Master Guide about feat level prerequisit or Epic Boon feat to that effect?
I only have access to the 2014 DMG, where epic boons were quite different. There they in fact did have a 20th level prerequisite as well as DM approval built in.
Anyone recall if there anything in the Dungeon Master Guide about feat level prerequisit or Epic Boon feat to that effect?
I do not recall the DMG mentioning it. Though I only recently learned some people view multiclassing as allowing you to take an epic boon, so it wasn't something I was looking for while reading the dmg
Hitting with an attack roll using a Finesse or a Ranged weapon is the requirement, something you're not doing when using Witch Bolt because you're hitting with the beam.
If I take the stance of 'no implications,' it doesn't matter that I am hitting with the beam. It is not required to hit with a weapon, just to 'use' it.
You're not making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus when casting a spell, you're using the Finesse weapon as a focus as a substitution for the Material component. Nothing more.
Yes, yes I am. I am "making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus (to substitute for the Material component) when casting a spell." You even admit that I am using it. You try to act like the specific use doesn't count, but nothing is written supporting that.
If what you're saying is true, then honestly, I don't think it's good to leave these kinds of examples on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
There is a risk involved in it being taken out of context, so I try to clarify that I am only using the argument to illustrate the flaws in the position 'implication does not matter' that some people are trying to take.
If there are any statements I made where I have not made that clear, please point them out to me and I will edit them to clarify. I admit that people could still snip around the clarification to misrepresent the statements, but people can edit the HTML and create quotes that never even existed, so a certain level of risk of people acting in bad faith always exists (and just to clarify, I am not accusing you of such a thing. I believe you are absolutely acting in good faith).
As I said, "adequately provide" means you can find what is being referred to. Are you honestly having trouble with that? Yes, it is an implication that is provided, but since you can find the implication (I am assuming), then it is "adequately provided." Again, your lack of agreement that it is implying that does not mean it is not "adequately provided." That means "not provided an adequate rule."
You seem to misunderstand how reductio ad absurdum works. The rule that says you can take a general feat is as follows:
You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat (see chapter 5) or another feat of your choice for which you qualify. You gain this feature again at. . .levels 8, 12, and 16.
Reductio ad absurdum shows that you cannot take that rule as an absolute and must consider that there is an error in it (since other errors in the rules clearly exist). It does not mandate that there must be an error in it. It is quite likely that the error is that they should have been clearer on the level 19 feature and made sure there was no implication that you needed level 19 in a single class to get an Epic Boon (this could have been done by simply labelling it as another ASI).
Your stance, however, is one of absolutism, that there can be no error in the statement and that anyone who feels that the error may lie there must be wrong.
To me Epci Boon feat's prerequisit are based on total character level. For example, a Fighter 18/Rogue 1 is a level 19 character with 305,000+ XP and +6 Proficiency Bonus.
Tier of Play briefly touches on Epic Boon feat, a level 18 Fighter that gain a level in Rogue as Character Advancement is Level 19.
Bonus Feats at Level 20: A DM can use feats as a form of advancement after characters reach level 20 to provide greater power to characters who have no more levels to gain. With this approach, each character gains one feat of their choice for every 30,000 XP the character earns above 355,000 XP. Epic Boon feats are especially appropriate for these bonus feats, but a player can choose any feat for which their level 20 character qualifies.
If R&D wished to limit it to class level, they could instead put
(Prerequisite: Epic Boon Feature)
Generally I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I think there has to be a reason they changed the feature from an ASI increase to an epic boon and separated it from the normal feat/ASI increase that you get at previous levels.
Hitting with an attack roll using a Finesse or a Ranged weapon is the requirement, something you're not doing when using Witch Bolt because you're hitting with the beam.
If I take the stance of 'no implications,' it doesn't matter that I am hitting with the beam. It is not required to hit with a weapon, just to 'use' it.
It's required to hit with the weapon you're using (emphasis mine), and again, you're not hitting with the Bard's spellcasting focus:
[...] you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack roll if you have Advantage on the roll and the attack uses a Finesse or a Ranged weapon. [...]
You're not making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus when casting a spell, you're using the Finesse weapon as a focus as a substitution for the Material component. Nothing more.
Yes, yes I am. I am "making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus (to substitute for the Material component) when casting a spell." You even admit that I am using it. You try to act like the specific use doesn't count, but nothing is written supporting that.
You're using the Finesse weapon only for the material spell component, not for the attack or hitting with it.
A spell’s components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell. [...] If the spellcaster can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, the spellcaster can’t cast the spell.
So they precede to the effect of a spell. You use the Finesse weapon (your spellcasting focus) before the effect, and the effect may or may not be hit by the beam.
2) From the SAC (emphasis mine):
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
If what you're saying is true, then honestly, I don't think it's good to leave these kinds of examples on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
There is a risk involved in it being taken out of context, so I try to clarify that I am only using the argument to illustrate the flaws in the position 'implication does not matter' that some people are trying to take.
If there are any statements I made where I have not made that clear, please point them out to me and I will edit them to clarify. I admit that people could still snip around the clarification to misrepresent the statements, but people can edit the HTML and create quotes that never even existed, so a certain level of risk of people acting in bad faith always exists (and just to clarify, I am not accusing you of such a thing. I believe you are absolutely acting in good faith).
No, no, it's simply as I said. The example will be read by future visitors and they might unlearn rules or get confused by what we leave written.
I'm pretty sure it's not correct according to RAW. But if you still think Sneak Attack interacts with Witch Bolt after my explanations, and your players are happy with that, that's fine.
PS. Sure, I'm just explaining my point of view in good faith, mate!
If R&D wished to limit it to class level, they could instead put
(Prerequisite: Epic Boon Feature)
Generally I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I think there has to be a reason they changed the feature from an ASI increase to an epic boon and separated it from the normal feat/ASI increase that you get at previous levels.
Possibly because it is a significant change from 2014, where epic boon feats were only available at 20 and per DM approval, and not simply a category of feats with a level 19 prerequisite?
If R&D wished to limit it to class level, they could instead put
(Prerequisite: Epic Boon Feature)
Generally I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I think there has to be a reason they changed the feature from an ASI increase to an epic boon and separated it from the normal feat/ASI increase that you get at previous levels.
The reason why is because the feature was named after the Epic Boon feat category it's instructing to choose a feat from, just like the feature Fighting Style was named after the feat category it's instructing to choose a feat from.
The Ability Score Improvement feature was named after the specific feat it grant.
I think it make a lot of sense the way they did it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
it is certainly fair to say "your wrong" when you aren't right. No need to appeal to authority when the rules of the system are consistent. No need to ask Maxwell about how to understand an electric field.
It is certainly possible to be confused or not understand, but the solution to that isn't some other interpretation, it is understanding the words that are there.
So then I can put you down as a 'yes' for the Sneak Attack/Witchbolt question, right?
Hitting with an attack roll using a Finesse or a Ranged weapon is the requirement, something you're not doing when using Witch Bolt because you're hitting with the beam.
You're not making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus when casting a spell, you're using the Finesse weapon as a focus as a substitution for the Material component. Nothing more.
A spell's components are physical requirements the spellcaster must meet to cast the spell. And as I said, they precede the effect of a spell.
If what you're saying is true, then honestly, I don't think it's good to leave these kinds of examples on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum.
I didn't say anything in this thread regarding sneak attack because this argument is a false equivalence as well as being completely off topic (near to non-constructive posting).
The question here is whether in ASI, "or another feat of your choice for which you qualify" means actually that only the prerequisite of the feat matters or that there is some other rule governing it that no one can adequately provide.
It is not a false equivalency. You are trying to maintain a strict 'RAW without possibility of implication' stance. It is a counter to that stance by showing the problems arising from it. It is, in fact, a logical argument called 'reductio ad absurdum'.
People have adequately provided an implied rule (the fact that every single class has a level 19 feature for Epic Boon). For the second time, I have provided it. Your refusal to admit that does not change the fact.
N.B., there is a significant difference between 'adequately provide' and 'provide an adequate rule'. 'Adequately provide' means that they have pointed you to their source so that it is not difficult for you to find. 'Provide an adequate rule' means you reject their interpretation (i.e. you do not feel that the feature is implying a rule).
Now, you are entirely free to reject that interpretation. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is for you to act like it hasn't happened, which you have done repeatedly.
No, you aren't showing the problems with my stance, you are avoiding the ones I point out in the one you present. My stance is that the text of the rule, and not its name, describes what it does, level means character level unless specified, and the prerequisite is what allows you to qualify for a feat. All of those are from the text, sure, but they are not the "text is all there is". They are individual distinct thoughts. You provided a counter example where there isn't clarity on what the definitions of terms are. It isn't the same, and you probably know it. I mean, you are just name calling my argument, not addressing it.
N.B I meant "adequately provide" judging from your definitions. You said it yourself, you only provided the implication of a rule, not any words from the rules describing the way feats work.
The rule you provided says that you gain an epic boon or another feat you qualify. Nothing in it precludes you from gaining an epic boon from other means,, such as an ASI if you qualify for it by other means. Nothing in it unlocks epic boons. And nothing prevents a 10/10 MC character from gaining them at 20th level as a form of character advancement.
And again per your reductio ad absurdum, where is the rule, implied or otherwise, that you can take a general feat with an ASI? Again, this is where I asked for a description of some rule (adequate or otherwise) that is consistent with the view of epic boons being unlocked.
Anyone recall if there anything in the Dungeon Master Guide about feat level prerequisit or Epic Boon feat to that effect?
If I take the stance of 'no implications,' it doesn't matter that I am hitting with the beam. It is not required to hit with a weapon, just to 'use' it.
Yes, yes I am. I am "making a spell attack using a Finesse weapon as a focus (to substitute for the Material component) when casting a spell." You even admit that I am using it. You try to act like the specific use doesn't count, but nothing is written supporting that.
Can you point to anything in the book that says they precede the effect of the spell and are not considered 'used,' or is that your interpretation?
There is a risk involved in it being taken out of context, so I try to clarify that I am only using the argument to illustrate the flaws in the position 'implication does not matter' that some people are trying to take.
If there are any statements I made where I have not made that clear, please point them out to me and I will edit them to clarify. I admit that people could still snip around the clarification to misrepresent the statements, but people can edit the HTML and create quotes that never even existed, so a certain level of risk of people acting in bad faith always exists (and just to clarify, I am not accusing you of such a thing. I believe you are absolutely acting in good faith).
I only have access to the 2014 DMG, where epic boons were quite different. There they in fact did have a 20th level prerequisite as well as DM approval built in.
I do not recall the DMG mentioning it. Though I only recently learned some people view multiclassing as allowing you to take an epic boon, so it wasn't something I was looking for while reading the dmg
As I said, "adequately provide" means you can find what is being referred to. Are you honestly having trouble with that? Yes, it is an implication that is provided, but since you can find the implication (I am assuming), then it is "adequately provided." Again, your lack of agreement that it is implying that does not mean it is not "adequately provided." That means "not provided an adequate rule."
You seem to misunderstand how reductio ad absurdum works. The rule that says you can take a general feat is as follows:
Reductio ad absurdum shows that you cannot take that rule as an absolute and must consider that there is an error in it (since other errors in the rules clearly exist). It does not mandate that there must be an error in it. It is quite likely that the error is that they should have been clearer on the level 19 feature and made sure there was no implication that you needed level 19 in a single class to get an Epic Boon (this could have been done by simply labelling it as another ASI).
Your stance, however, is one of absolutism, that there can be no error in the statement and that anyone who feels that the error may lie there must be wrong.
To me Epci Boon feat's prerequisit are based on total character level. For example, a Fighter 18/Rogue 1 is a level 19 character with 305,000+ XP and +6 Proficiency Bonus.
Tier of Play briefly touches on Epic Boon feat, a level 18 Fighter that gain a level in Rogue as Character Advancement is Level 19.
If R&D wished to limit it to class level, they could instead put
(Prerequisite: Epic Boon Feature)
The error was assuming an error in the rules all along.
Generally I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I think there has to be a reason they changed the feature from an ASI increase to an epic boon and separated it from the normal feat/ASI increase that you get at previous levels.
It's required to hit with the weapon you're using (emphasis mine), and again, you're not hitting with the Bard's spellcasting focus:
You're using the Finesse weapon only for the material spell component, not for the attack or hitting with it.
The information can be found at least in two places:
1)
So they precede to the effect of a spell. You use the Finesse weapon (your spellcasting focus) before the effect, and the effect may or may not be hit by the beam.
2) From the SAC (emphasis mine):
No, no, it's simply as I said. The example will be read by future visitors and they might unlearn rules or get confused by what we leave written.
I'm pretty sure it's not correct according to RAW. But if you still think Sneak Attack interacts with Witch Bolt after my explanations, and your players are happy with that, that's fine.
PS. Sure, I'm just explaining my point of view in good faith, mate!
Possibly because it is a significant change from 2014, where epic boon feats were only available at 20 and per DM approval, and not simply a category of feats with a level 19 prerequisite?
2014 Epic Boon was not feat but other reward in the form of special power.
yeah, exactly my point. Now they're just a category of feats that have a 19+ prerequisite.
The reason why is because the feature was named after the Epic Boon feat category it's instructing to choose a feat from, just like the feature Fighting Style was named after the feat category it's instructing to choose a feat from.
The Ability Score Improvement feature was named after the specific feat it grant.
I think it make a lot of sense the way they did it.