If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not simply word the other smites just like it then?
Possibly because it was a different author and the editor didn't think it was necessary to format every spell exactly the same.
Then what about errata and future publishing's, I could sympathise with that statement but how many years has it been since the players handbook was released .
I don't think magic the gathering has this issue
The system of game play, particularly order of operations in calculating damage durring action economy, in conjunction with the wording of the spell allows for an alternative understand of its effects outside of the genral consensus.
next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
So... you seriously think they put the word 'next' in there so people wouldn't try to apply the damage to hits made before the spell was cast?
This is a serious argument you are attempting to make?
Yes consider if it instead said
A creature you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends.
You could very well argue that the spell dose not differentiate since the start of the spell and before casting of the spell
While it is common sense to assume it would convay a understanding to affect a creature after the casting, it does not specify
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
So... you seriously think they put the word 'next' in there so people wouldn't try to apply the damage to hits made before the spell was cast?
This is a serious argument you are attempting to make?
Yes
Wow.
consider if it instead said
A creature you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends.
You could very well argue that the spell dose not differentiate since the start of the spell and before casting of the spell
While it is common sense
Common sense left this thread two pages ago. Don't try and invoke it now
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
next prevents the effects from being applied retroactively, meaning going forward for the spells duration
So... you seriously think they put the word 'next' in there so people wouldn't try to apply the damage to hits made before the spell was cast?
This is a serious argument you are attempting to make?
Yes
Wow.
consider if it instead said
A creature you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends.
You could very well argue that the spell dose not differentiate since the start of the spell and before casting of the spell
While it is common sense
Common sense left this thread two pages ago. Don't try and invoke it now
I do belive the meaning behind my words were misconstrued, I am not arguing for common sense application but rather the literal application Of the spell description as it falls within the oder of operation of gameplay
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
This isn't a common sense interpretation argument. This is a literal interpretation of the word "next."
They don't have to elaborate what the word "next" means, because the game is written in English with the assumption that those reading the spell text have an understanding of how basic English operates. Hence, when they say a spell applies a buff to the "next time you hit with a weapon attack", it means that it happens the next time you hit with a weapon attack.
If they meant "every time you hit with a weapon attack until the spell ends" then they would have said so because those words mean very different things in English.
For posterity, here's the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "next":
next
/nekst/
adjective
1.
(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.
"we'll go next year"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
Opposite:
previous
preceding
2.
coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.
"the woman in the next room"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
neighboring
adjacent
adjoining
next-door
bordering
abutting
contiguous
connected
connecting
attached
closest
nearest
proximate
Opposite:
previous
preceding
adverb
1.
on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.
If that is the case explain why they would use different wording in thunderous smite, why not simply word the other smites just like it then?
Possibly because it was a different author and the editor didn't think it was necessary to format every spell exactly the same.
Then what about errata and future publishing's, I could sympathise with that statement but how many years has it been since the players handbook was released .
I don't think magic the gathering has this issue
The system of game play, particularly order of operations in calculating damage durring action economy, in conjunction with the wording of the spell allows for an alternative understand of its effects outside of the genral consensus.
There was no need for an errata, because no one ever thought it was unclear.
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
The spell is not called "oil" it is called grease. and you are right, it doesnt say anything about the conjured grease being flammable (it isn't necessarily oil though), but not sure how that applies at all to the smite spells the way you think it does, because they are already as accurately worded as they need to be, so long as you understand what the definition of "next" is. The issue here is your understanding of the word and how it is used in common english, not the spell.
I do belive the meaning behind my words were misconstrued
“When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that’s all.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
This isn't a common sense interpretation argument. This is a literal interpretation of the word "next."
They don't have to elaborate what the word "next" means, because the game is written in English with the assumption that those reading the spell text have an understanding of how basic English operates. Hence, when they say a spell applies a buff to the "next time you hit with a weapon attack", it means that it happens the next time you hit with a weapon attack.
If they meant "every time you hit with a weapon attack until the spell ends" then they would have said so because those words mean very different things in English.
For posterity, here's the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "next":
next
/nekst/
adjective
1.
(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.
"we'll go next year"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
Opposite:
previous
preceding
2.
coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.
"the woman in the next room"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
neighboring
adjacent
adjoining
next-door
bordering
abutting
contiguous
connected
connecting
attached
closest
nearest
proximate
Opposite:
previous
preceding
adverb
1.
on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.
"he wondered what would happen next"
Similar:
then
after this/that
following that/this
after
afterwards
after that time
later
at a later time
subsequently
at a subsequent time
thereafter
thereupon
Opposite:
before
2.
following in the specified order.
"Jo was the next oldest after Martin"
noun
the next person or thing.
"the week after next"
preposition
ARCHAIC
next to.
"he plodded along next him"
Yes however the spell does not distinguish between the first or last instance or any inbweteen it's duration. The spell is still active and it's effects can trigger allowing for mulpile next hits
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
This isn't a common sense interpretation argument. This is a literal interpretation of the word "next."
They don't have to elaborate what the word "next" means, because the game is written in English with the assumption that those reading the spell text have an understanding of how basic English operates. Hence, when they say a spell applies a buff to the "next time you hit with a weapon attack", it means that it happens the next time you hit with a weapon attack.
If they meant "every time you hit with a weapon attack until the spell ends" then they would have said so because those words mean very different things in English.
For posterity, here's the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "next":
next
/nekst/
adjective
1.
(of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.
"we'll go next year"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
Opposite:
previous
preceding
2.
coming immediately after the present one in order, rank, or space.
"the woman in the next room"
Similar:
following
succeeding
to come
upcoming
neighboring
adjacent
adjoining
next-door
bordering
abutting
contiguous
connected
connecting
attached
closest
nearest
proximate
Opposite:
previous
preceding
adverb
1.
on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterwards.
"he wondered what would happen next"
Similar:
then
after this/that
following that/this
after
afterwards
after that time
later
at a later time
subsequently
at a subsequent time
thereafter
thereupon
Opposite:
before
2.
following in the specified order.
"Jo was the next oldest after Martin"
noun
the next person or thing.
"the week after next"
preposition
ARCHAIC
next to.
"he plodded along next him"
Yes however the spell does not distinguish between the first or last instance or any inbweteen it's duration. The spell is still active and it's effects can trigger allowing for mulpile next hits
The word "next" distinguishes between first and last instances because that's literally what the word means.
Yes however the spell does not distinguish between the first or last instance or any inbweteen it's duration. The spell is still active and it's effects can trigger allowing for mulpile next hits
I can only assume you're trolling at this point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
The spell is not called "oil" it is called grease. and you are right, it doesnt say anything about the conjured grease being flammable (it isn't necessarily oil though), but not sure how that applies at all to the smite spells the way you think it does, because they are already as accurately worded as they need to be, so long as you understand what the definition of "next" is. The issue here is your understanding of the word and how it is used in common english, not the spell.
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
The spell is not called "oil" it is called grease. and you are right, it doesnt say anything about the conjured grease being flammable (it isn't necessarily oil though), but not sure how that applies at all to the smite spells the way you think it does, because they are already as accurately worded as they need to be, so long as you understand what the definition of "next" is. The issue here is your understanding of the word and how it is used in common english, not the spell.
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
The difference is that the vast majority of oils are flammable by nature, but not all greases are (oils are a type of grease, but not all greases are oils). So there is a difference in the terms that is important to understanding your example, and your lack of nuance in language is creating a situation here (and in Smite spells) that is unnecessary and is creating a problem that doesn't really exist. In your grease example, if they had actually said "oil" then there may be some understandable confusion as to why the oil wouldn't be flammable, but they didn't use that word, and the word they used instead is ambiguous enough regarding flammability that most people take the face value of the spell that omits any flammable nature from the conjured grease.
There is nothing wrong with the Smite spells as written, the only problem is you refusing to understand what "next" actually means in context.
The difference between the Grease example and the Smite examples is that for Grease, you are saying an effect does not apply because the spell does not say it applies. For Smite, you are saying an effect does apply because the spell does not explicitly say it does not apply. You are actually undermining your own argument.
And I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing now, because it's clear that everyone but you thinks Smites apply once, and you are clearly never going to change your mind no matter what reasoning or evidence is applied.
Then what about errata and future publishing's, I could sympathise with that statement but how many years has it been since the players handbook was released .
I don't think magic the gathering has this issue
The system of game play, particularly order of operations in calculating damage durring action economy, in conjunction with the wording of the spell allows for an alternative understand of its effects outside of the genral consensus.
Yes consider if it instead said
A creature you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends gleams with astral radiance as you strike. The attack deals an extra 2d6 radiant damage to the target, which becomes visible if it is invisible, and the target sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius and can’t become invisible until the spell ends.
You could very well argue that the spell dose not differentiate since the start of the spell and before casting of the spell
While it is common sense to assume it would convay a understanding to affect a creature after the casting, it does not specify
RE the meaning of the word "next". If I say "I'm coming back tomorrow and the next day", I am referring to two (2) days that I will be "back". Tomorrow was one (1) and the next day was an additional one (1). It does not mean I live here now, or that I will be coming back every day in perpetuity.
If, however, I said "I'll be back tomorrow! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day! And the next day!....." on and on (https://youtu.be/yHIX7O8wQNQ), then I would be talking in perpetuity because of my repeated application of the word "next", each use implying a single (1) additional day. Next means one (1) singular.
The concentration effect on any Smite spell merely applies to the secondary effect's duration. A fun way to remember it is that all Smite spells work the same, in that they augment an attack with extra damage and a secondary debuff effect, the spells varying between Blinding, Grasping, Searing, etc depending on damage type and debuff type.
Wow.
Common sense left this thread two pages ago. Don't try and invoke it now
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I do belive the meaning behind my words were misconstrued, I am not arguing for common sense application but rather the literal application Of the spell description as it falls within the oder of operation of gameplay
Then it should say that in the later half of the spell
If I cast oil and then try to ignite it, it would not since the spell does not specifically say flammable oil even thou oil is combustible
You cannot argue that for a spells effect to be a specific way it requires leaps of common sense and then not be able to use that same tool to interact with a different spell
This isn't a common sense interpretation argument. This is a literal interpretation of the word "next."
They don't have to elaborate what the word "next" means, because the game is written in English with the assumption that those reading the spell text have an understanding of how basic English operates. Hence, when they say a spell applies a buff to the "next time you hit with a weapon attack", it means that it happens the next time you hit with a weapon attack.
If they meant "every time you hit with a weapon attack until the spell ends" then they would have said so because those words mean very different things in English.
For posterity, here's the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "next":
There was no need for an errata, because no one ever thought it was unclear.
The spell is not called "oil" it is called grease. and you are right, it doesnt say anything about the conjured grease being flammable (it isn't necessarily oil though), but not sure how that applies at all to the smite spells the way you think it does, because they are already as accurately worded as they need to be, so long as you understand what the definition of "next" is. The issue here is your understanding of the word and how it is used in common english, not the spell.
“When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is", said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that’s all.”
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes however the spell does not distinguish between the first or last instance or any inbweteen it's duration. The spell is still active and it's effects can trigger allowing for mulpile next hits
The word "next" distinguishes between first and last instances because that's literally what the word means.
I can only assume you're trolling at this point.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The exact mental leaps that allow people to understand that i am talking about grease even though i said oil lead people to make the same conclusion about smite spells. Using that same method of understand you would conclude the the substance creayed by the grease spell is flammable. However It is not and good luck trying to argue to point it is. It's a double standard. The understanding of the rule works one way for this spell but doesn't apply to this spell
Ok, lemme untangle this since you brought up grease and nobody's sure why.
The text of the spell does not specify that the grease is flammable, therefore the spell is not flammable because by the social contact of language, we understand that that's what those words mean.
Likewise:
The text of the Smite spells states that the buff applies to the next hit. Therefore it means that it applies to specificity the immediate next hit (see definition above), and specifically not the one after, or the one after, because by the social contact of language, that is not what that word means.
I'm seeing quite a few mental leaps in your interpretation.
I have to assume Fergottan is just trolling at this point.
The difference is that the vast majority of oils are flammable by nature, but not all greases are (oils are a type of grease, but not all greases are oils). So there is a difference in the terms that is important to understanding your example, and your lack of nuance in language is creating a situation here (and in Smite spells) that is unnecessary and is creating a problem that doesn't really exist. In your grease example, if they had actually said "oil" then there may be some understandable confusion as to why the oil wouldn't be flammable, but they didn't use that word, and the word they used instead is ambiguous enough regarding flammability that most people take the face value of the spell that omits any flammable nature from the conjured grease.
There is nothing wrong with the Smite spells as written, the only problem is you refusing to understand what "next" actually means in context.
The difference between the Grease example and the Smite examples is that for Grease, you are saying an effect does not apply because the spell does not say it applies. For Smite, you are saying an effect does apply because the spell does not explicitly say it does not apply. You are actually undermining your own argument.
And I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing now, because it's clear that everyone but you thinks Smites apply once, and you are clearly never going to change your mind no matter what reasoning or evidence is applied.
This thread is hilarious.
Yeah I think we can confirm that Fergottan is a troll considering their account is only 3 days old and they've only ever posted on this thread.