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.
Neither of those statements says that the material component is not 'used' when you cast the spell. The second quoted section does not even speak about material components. It is exclusively about verbal components.
You infer from these that using the short sword as a material component does not constitute 'use'; I will admit that it is a perfectly reasonable inference.
However, I am showing the danger of taking the stance that you can't infer things and that you are only dealing with black-and-white rules (the stance used to say that people who infer that you need to be level 19 in a single class are 'wrong' because inferring isn't allowed, rather than simply saying 'I don't accept that inference').
Without inference, I see nothing in the rules that says that the Sneak Attack bonus would not be applied in this case (and again, for clarity to anyone who has not read previous posts, I am not proposing it be allowed. I am using it to illustrate a fundamental flaw in the argument that you cannot infer anything).
You might be able to point to places where inference is required in the rules, but that isn't the case here.
When someone infers a rule that is contradicted or unsupported by the written text is when it becomes a problem. Inferring what text means and inferring that text that isn't there is are different. Inferring that 19th level in one class is require with no support is problematic. Inferring that the prerequisite is incomplete is assuming an error. Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
So sure you can rule differently, but that isn't because of what the rules say, it is because you don't like or understand what they say.
Honestly, the point isn't about Sneak Attack. It's about demanding people to follow RAW and saying that people who don't are automatically 'wrong'. It is an example of the drawback of this stance (since there doesn't appear to be any black-letter rule that says that it wouldn't work).
I think we all agree that it is terrible. It is brought up because it is the inevitable result of some people's position. I don't get why people are trying to explain why they would disallow it outside of this position (providing interpretations and inferences). Its whole intent is to show why those positions are superior (because they can accommodate issues like this).
You might be able to point to places where inference is required in the rules, but that isn't the case here.
When someone infers a rule that is contradicted or unsupported by the written text is when it becomes a problem. Inferring what text means and inferring that text that isn't there is are different. Inferring that 19th level in one class is require with no support is problematic. Inferring that the prerequisite is incomplete is assuming an error. Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
So sure you can rule differently, but that isn't because of what the rules say, it is because you don't like or understand what they say.
Third time, you rejecting the support does not mean the support does not exist.
Follow along:
The job of the designers is to eliminate disagreement in the rules. When they accidentally fail to do that, it is an error.
There is clearly disagreement.
Thus, there is an error (unless you assume that they intentionally wanted to create disagreement, at which point it isn't an error but more like malfeasance, but I think we can safely eliminate that possibility).
You have to make some assumption as to where the error is (unless you believe the designers intentionally created the disagreement)
Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
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 they changed it would be to draw attention to the Epic Boon feat category which are not available until character level 19. The character feature strongly suggests that an epic boon feat would likely be preferred at level 19 and goes so far as to suggest an option for each class. If it just said ASI without mentioning the epic boon feats that only become available at level 19 then there would be some people who would miss the option since not everyone reads all of the text for all of the feats. Either that or they might just forget that an epic boon feat became an option at 19.
In addition, why did they bother to call all of the other features that grant feats an "Ability Score Improvement"? ASI is just another feat these days. All of the features could have simply been called "Feat" and said "Choose a feat for which you qualify." Historically, in 2014, the similar feature was called an Ability Score Improvement because ASIs and feats were different things - perhaps they just continued a misleading naming convention for 2024 because it was familar?
Or perhaps the reason the feature mentions the ASI feat in particular is to make it prominent for new players choosing feats. The Ability Score Increase feat is an easy choice for newer players or those who don't want to read all the details of all the feats.
So the reason the lower level features say "Ability Score Increase feat or another feat for which you qualify." and the level 19 feature says "Epic boon feat or another feat for which you qualify." ... is simply to point the reader in the direction of preferred options.
The only pre-requisite on epic boon feats is level 19+ ... and the only constraint on category is that a character can choose any category (including epic boon feats) if the category of feat is not specified by the feature. Those are the rules. Linking taking epic boon feats to the level 19 feature is a very easy misconception ... that is exactly what I thought until I read the actual rules and realized that the only pre-requisite for epic boon feats was a level 19+ character and choosing that feat category wasn't otherwise constrained.
In addition, note that the pre-requisite on epic boon feats is explicitly level 19+ ... the "+" sign is significant since if the only way to obtain the epic boon feats was through the level 19 class feature then the epic boon feats could have just listed the pre-requisite as "Level 19" since there is no other way to obtain them given that line of thinking. Level 19+ implies that a level 20 character can also choose an epic boon feat which can only happen by receiving a feat at level 20 either through normal character progression or a DM using feats for progression beyond 20.
Anyway, it is up to a DM to choose how they wish to run it, as always, but in this case the rules are pretty clear when one goes through them in detail and discards pre-conceived ideas regarding what it should say or might have intended to say and just focus on what the rules actually say.
You might be able to point to places where inference is required in the rules, but that isn't the case here.
When someone infers a rule that is contradicted or unsupported by the written text is when it becomes a problem. Inferring what text means and inferring that text that isn't there is are different. Inferring that 19th level in one class is require with no support is problematic. Inferring that the prerequisite is incomplete is assuming an error. Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
So sure you can rule differently, but that isn't because of what the rules say, it is because you don't like or understand what they say.
Third time, you rejecting the support does not mean the support does not exist.
Follow along:
The job of the designers is to eliminate disagreement in the rules. When they accidentally fail to do that, it is an error.
That isn't a rule, that is an assertion. Nonetheless, we're trying to determine what the RULES mean, not what the philosophy of design is. The question isn't if there was an error in meeting some imagined design goal of writing a rule, the question is whether there is an error in the rules that are written.
There is clearly disagreement.
No, there is a misunderstanding of the written rules.
Thus, there is an error (unless you assume that they intentionally wanted to create disagreement, at which point it isn't an error but more like malfeasance, but I think we can safely eliminate that possibility).
Not in the rule, in your understanding.
You have to make some assumption as to where the error is (unless you believe the designers intentionally created the disagreement)
Only if you assume an error. If you assume the rules say what they mean to, then the interpretation falls out.
Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
You aren't making any rules arguments, you are just making argument arguments. Who cares if I can't point to every logical fallacy you've made in all your posts here? The rules are still what they are, and as you agreed, assuming an error isn't the basis for a rules argument.
But we're here to discuss rules. So we're not assuming errors in the rules text.
We're not discussing the same problem, so I'm going to give up and say that of course, you can assume anything you like and because of that get to any logically sound (bad) conclusion you like.
Perhaps future Sneak Attack discussions could be moved to a new thread?
Yes, sorry for the off-topic / noise, guys.
@esampson, I'll stop the discussion about Sneak Attack on my side. In any case, I can't explain it any better than I already have with the details and examples I provided. I won't create a new thread since I think the rules are clear, but feel free to do so if you'd like, and I'll gladly join in.
Regarding when you're allowed to pick an Epic Boon, I agree with the reasons given by Plague, Wolf, and David.
I pointed out in another thread that if you compare the requirements for general feats and epic boon feats they are worded the same way. They only say “prerequisite: level 4+” yet we know it can only be taken based on Class level. And I say the same for Epic Boons. It’s on the class table for each class for a reason. Because it’s a feature of the class, not the character.
It’s the level 19 ASI of 2014 but expanded to give access to the category of Epic Boons.
While now general feats have a prerequisite Level 4+, nothing indicate class level specifically and it could therefore also be character level for that matter.
In order to take a generla feat, you need a feature letting you take a feat of that category so it's not like a Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 could take one despite meeting the prerequisit.
I don't think there's a way to take a general feat before level 4. Before that level, features gives feats from either the origin or fighting style category.
While now general feats have a prerequisite Level 4+, nothing indicate class level specifically and it could therefore also be character level for that matter.
In order to take a generla feat, you need a feature letting you take a feat of that category so it's not like a Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 could take one despite meeting the prerequisit.
Right. You need a feature to give you access to the general feats category at level 4+ and the epic boon feats category at level 19+. And they are specifically granted to a class at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16 for General (fighters and rogues get extra ones at the appropriate class level) and class level 19 for Epic Boons.
So your fighter 2/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the general feats category yet and a fighter 17/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the epic boon category.
There's no obvious way at present. I suspect the Level 4+ requirement is a combination of Future Proofing (e.g., if they accidentally publish 'take a feat' instead of 'take an Origin feat' for something) and covering their bases (e.g., there's a race or option they missed buried away somewhere that says something along the lines of 'take a feat of your choice').
Right. You need a feature to give you access to the general feats category at level 4+ and the epic boon feats category at level 19+. And they are specifically granted to a class at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16 for General (fighters and rogues get extra ones at the appropriate class level) and class level 19 for Epic Boons.
So your fighter 2/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the general feats category yet and a fighter 17/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the epic boon category.
I disagree, a Fighter 16 / Rogue 4 freshly leveling upon gaining the Ability Score Improvement feature could choose an Epic Boon feat because he qualify being level 20. The prerequisit of Epic Boon feats is not the Epic Boon feature as opposed to Fighting Style feats that have Fighting Style feature as prerequisit for example.
Ability Score Improvement: You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat or another feat of your choice for which you qualify.
The rules provide an example where taking one feat of their choice can be an Epic Boon feat, meaning Epic Boon feats don't necessarily need to be granted by the Epic Boon feature.
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.
The rules provide an example where taking one feat of their choice can be an Epic Boon feat, meaning Epic Boon feats don't necessarily need to be granted by the Epic Boon feature.
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.
IMHO, this is definitely one of the main proofs, so to take an Epic Boon, you only need to meet the current prerequisite: Level 19+
While now general feats have a prerequisite Level 4+, nothing indicate class level specifically and it could therefore also be character level for that matter.
In order to take a generla feat, you need a feature letting you take a feat of that category so it's not like a Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 could take one despite meeting the prerequisit.
Right. You need a feature to give you access to the general feats category at level 4+ and the epic boon feats category at level 19+. And they are specifically granted to a class at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16 for General (fighters and rogues get extra ones at the appropriate class level) and class level 19 for Epic Boons.
So your fighter 2/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the general feats category yet and a fighter 17/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the epic boon category.
Category. A feat is a member of a category, which is noted in the feat. If you’re instructed to choose a feat from a specific category, such as the Origin category, that category must appear under the feat’s name. If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
This is the main problem with that line of thought.
If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
But to take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite.
So for example a level 4 class without the Fighting Style feature doesn't qualify for any feat in the Fighting Style or Epic Boon category as well as potentially some feats in the General category despite being able to pick from any category with the feat granted by Ability Score Improvement feature.
Neither of those statements says that the material component is not 'used' when you cast the spell. The second quoted section does not even speak about material components. It is exclusively about verbal components.
You infer from these that using the short sword as a material component does not constitute 'use'; I will admit that it is a perfectly reasonable inference.
However, I am showing the danger of taking the stance that you can't infer things and that you are only dealing with black-and-white rules (the stance used to say that people who infer that you need to be level 19 in a single class are 'wrong' because inferring isn't allowed, rather than simply saying 'I don't accept that inference').
Without inference, I see nothing in the rules that says that the Sneak Attack bonus would not be applied in this case (and again, for clarity to anyone who has not read previous posts, I am not proposing it be allowed. I am using it to illustrate a fundamental flaw in the argument that you cannot infer anything).
Perhaps future Sneak Attack discussions could be moved to a new thread?
You might be able to point to places where inference is required in the rules, but that isn't the case here.
When someone infers a rule that is contradicted or unsupported by the written text is when it becomes a problem. Inferring what text means and inferring that text that isn't there is are different. Inferring that 19th level in one class is require with no support is problematic. Inferring that the prerequisite is incomplete is assuming an error. Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
So sure you can rule differently, but that isn't because of what the rules say, it is because you don't like or understand what they say.
Honestly, the point isn't about Sneak Attack. It's about demanding people to follow RAW and saying that people who don't are automatically 'wrong'. It is an example of the drawback of this stance (since there doesn't appear to be any black-letter rule that says that it wouldn't work).
I think we all agree that it is terrible. It is brought up because it is the inevitable result of some people's position. I don't get why people are trying to explain why they would disallow it outside of this position (providing interpretations and inferences). Its whole intent is to show why those positions are superior (because they can accommodate issues like this).
Third time, you rejecting the support does not mean the support does not exist.
Follow along:
The job of the designers is to eliminate disagreement in the rules. When they accidentally fail to do that, it is an error.
There is clearly disagreement.
Thus, there is an error (unless you assume that they intentionally wanted to create disagreement, at which point it isn't an error but more like malfeasance, but I think we can safely eliminate that possibility).
You have to make some assumption as to where the error is (unless you believe the designers intentionally created the disagreement)
Assuming an error is not the basis of a rules argument, it is the basis for a house rule.
Thus, your statement is a house rule.
The reason they changed it would be to draw attention to the Epic Boon feat category which are not available until character level 19. The character feature strongly suggests that an epic boon feat would likely be preferred at level 19 and goes so far as to suggest an option for each class. If it just said ASI without mentioning the epic boon feats that only become available at level 19 then there would be some people who would miss the option since not everyone reads all of the text for all of the feats. Either that or they might just forget that an epic boon feat became an option at 19.
In addition, why did they bother to call all of the other features that grant feats an "Ability Score Improvement"? ASI is just another feat these days. All of the features could have simply been called "Feat" and said "Choose a feat for which you qualify." Historically, in 2014, the similar feature was called an Ability Score Improvement because ASIs and feats were different things - perhaps they just continued a misleading naming convention for 2024 because it was familar?
Or perhaps the reason the feature mentions the ASI feat in particular is to make it prominent for new players choosing feats. The Ability Score Increase feat is an easy choice for newer players or those who don't want to read all the details of all the feats.
So the reason the lower level features say "Ability Score Increase feat or another feat for which you qualify." and the level 19 feature says "Epic boon feat or another feat for which you qualify." ... is simply to point the reader in the direction of preferred options.
The only pre-requisite on epic boon feats is level 19+ ... and the only constraint on category is that a character can choose any category (including epic boon feats) if the category of feat is not specified by the feature. Those are the rules. Linking taking epic boon feats to the level 19 feature is a very easy misconception ... that is exactly what I thought until I read the actual rules and realized that the only pre-requisite for epic boon feats was a level 19+ character and choosing that feat category wasn't otherwise constrained.
In addition, note that the pre-requisite on epic boon feats is explicitly level 19+ ... the "+" sign is significant since if the only way to obtain the epic boon feats was through the level 19 class feature then the epic boon feats could have just listed the pre-requisite as "Level 19" since there is no other way to obtain them given that line of thinking. Level 19+ implies that a level 20 character can also choose an epic boon feat which can only happen by receiving a feat at level 20 either through normal character progression or a DM using feats for progression beyond 20.
Anyway, it is up to a DM to choose how they wish to run it, as always, but in this case the rules are pretty clear when one goes through them in detail and discards pre-conceived ideas regarding what it should say or might have intended to say and just focus on what the rules actually say.
That isn't a rule, that is an assertion. Nonetheless, we're trying to determine what the RULES mean, not what the philosophy of design is. The question isn't if there was an error in meeting some imagined design goal of writing a rule, the question is whether there is an error in the rules that are written.
No, there is a misunderstanding of the written rules.
Not in the rule, in your understanding.
Only if you assume an error. If you assume the rules say what they mean to, then the interpretation falls out.
The only one here who assumed an error is you.
You aren't making any rules arguments, you are just making argument arguments. Who cares if I can't point to every logical fallacy you've made in all your posts here? The rules are still what they are, and as you agreed, assuming an error isn't the basis for a rules argument.
But we're here to discuss rules. So we're not assuming errors in the rules text.
We're not discussing the same problem, so I'm going to give up and say that of course, you can assume anything you like and because of that get to any logically sound (bad) conclusion you like.
I've been searching for "epic" or "boon(s)" across the digital book, but I couldn't find anything...
It looks like the only reference to Epic Boons is in the 2024 PHB for now.
Yes, sorry for the off-topic / noise, guys.
@esampson, I'll stop the discussion about Sneak Attack on my side. In any case, I can't explain it any better than I already have with the details and examples I provided. I won't create a new thread since I think the rules are clear, but feel free to do so if you'd like, and I'll gladly join in.
Regarding when you're allowed to pick an Epic Boon, I agree with the reasons given by Plague, Wolf, and David.
Ask your DM.
I pointed out in another thread that if you compare the requirements for general feats and epic boon feats they are worded the same way. They only say “prerequisite: level 4+” yet we know it can only be taken based on Class level. And I say the same for Epic Boons. It’s on the class table for each class for a reason. Because it’s a feature of the class, not the character.
It’s the level 19 ASI of 2014 but expanded to give access to the category of Epic Boons.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While now general feats have a prerequisite Level 4+, nothing indicate class level specifically and it could therefore also be character level for that matter.
In order to take a generla feat, you need a feature letting you take a feat of that category so it's not like a Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 could take one despite meeting the prerequisit.
I don't think there's a way to take a general feat before level 4. Before that level, features gives feats from either the origin or fighting style category.
Right. You need a feature to give you access to the general feats category at level 4+ and the epic boon feats category at level 19+. And they are specifically granted to a class at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16 for General (fighters and rogues get extra ones at the appropriate class level) and class level 19 for Epic Boons.
So your fighter 2/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the general feats category yet and a fighter 17/rogue 2 doesn’t have access to the epic boon category.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
There's no obvious way at present. I suspect the Level 4+ requirement is a combination of Future Proofing (e.g., if they accidentally publish 'take a feat' instead of 'take an Origin feat' for something) and covering their bases (e.g., there's a race or option they missed buried away somewhere that says something along the lines of 'take a feat of your choice').
I disagree, a Fighter 16 / Rogue 4 freshly leveling upon gaining the Ability Score Improvement feature could choose an Epic Boon feat because he qualify being level 20. The prerequisit of Epic Boon feats is not the Epic Boon feature as opposed to Fighting Style feats that have Fighting Style feature as prerequisit for example.
The rules provide an example where taking one feat of their choice can be an Epic Boon feat, meaning Epic Boon feats don't necessarily need to be granted by the Epic Boon feature.
IMHO, this is definitely one of the main proofs, so to take an Epic Boon, you only need to meet the current prerequisite: Level 19+
This is the main problem with that line of thought.
If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
But to take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite.
So for example a level 4 class without the Fighting Style feature doesn't qualify for any feat in the Fighting Style or Epic Boon category as well as potentially some feats in the General category despite being able to pick from any category with the feat granted by Ability Score Improvement feature.