Timeline for Is changing prepared spells a 'benefit of a long rest'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2021 at 12:34 | comment | added | illustro | @RyanC.Thompson it's also worth pointing out that the question didn't ask for gameplay sense, they asked for RAW. I make rulings that are contrary to the strict interpretation of the rules all the time (they are close enough in the moment to make sense) so the game runs smoothly and we don't spend 75% of a 4 hour session reading the rules, instead we only spend 5%-10% (ish) actually reading the rules, and most of that is interpreting spell text in game. It is eminently possible that RAW interpretations of the rules make the gameplay measurably worse because the designers made a mistake. | |
| Sep 7, 2021 at 12:29 | comment | added | illustro | If we treated prepared spells the way they were treated in 1st & 2nd edition (ie prepared spells disappear from your mind once you use them) then we would be having a very different conversation about spell preparation. D&D 5e broke away from that convention, and made the limited resource spell slots, not specific prepared spells. | |
| Sep 7, 2021 at 12:27 | comment | added | illustro | To put it another way, there is such an extreme benefit to regaining a limited resource (like spell slots, hit dice, hit points etc) that cannot be overcome by making poor decisions with that limited resource. By comparison swapping out one set of "unlimited" resources for another set of "unlimited" resources is a much closer call over whether or not one is beneficial compared to the other, and user decision making then becomes key to breaking that tie. | |
| Sep 7, 2021 at 12:24 | comment | added | illustro | @MarkWells No. You are conflating two different things. Spell slots are fundamentally different because they are a resource, without them you can't cast any spells regardless of your choice (whether it be good or bad). If you can't change your current spell for more beneficial spells, you aren't prevented from using your spell slots to cast your existing spells. | |
| Sep 7, 2021 at 2:17 | comment | added | Mark Wells | @illustro If you're saying that getting to prepare spells is not a "benefit" because the player might pick the wrong spells, then by that standard, is anything a benefit? "Regaining spell slots isn't necessarily a benefit, because you might use them to cast Fireball on yourself." | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 22:22 | comment | added | illustro | To put it another way. The player may also expect that a magic item they find will be advantageous, however curses items exist. Just because a player has an expectation does not mean they are correct in having that expectation. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 22:20 | comment | added | illustro | @MarkWells And the specific enemy feature means that one of their most common tools (preparing new spells) is no longer going to be (strictly) advantageous. This is a 16th level party of characters. They should have abundant methods to deal with this. The feature takes away one of them. They can always choose to make suboptimal choices. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 21:45 | comment | added | Mark Wells | Given that the player has the choice to not swap out spells, can't we safely assume that they expect it to be advantageous? | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 20:27 | comment | added | illustro | I mean, to be clear, the player isn't gaining back their spell slots or using hit dice, so they are in a very resource constrained situation. I'm not looking to kill the character, but present challenges for the group to overcome. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 20:25 | comment | added | illustro | @RyanC.Thompson How I would play this at the table is to lay out some ground rules based on how I'd decided: you can't prepare anything that would remove curses, teleports you somewhere safe or enables you to contact someone that you don't already have prepared). If you are swapping out spells, you can swap a spell of 1-2 levels higher than the one you are bringing in. Then I'd trust the player. Basically I'd tell the player, swapping out spells won't help you get rid of this effect and there are some restrictions on swapping (above). | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 20:15 | comment | added | Ryan C. Thompson | This ruling might make theoretical sense, but I don't think it makes gameplay sense. You're basically saying that yes, the cleric can prepare new spells, but only if the DM deems them to be useless (or close enough to be considered "not beneficial"), based on the current situation. How would you play that at the table? Have the cleric start reading out spells from the PHB while the DM says yes or no? That seems very likely to grind the game to a halt. I suspect that the only playable answers to this question are an unqualified yes or no. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 18:37 | comment | added | illustro | YEs. It hinges on the idea that multiple people doing the same activity do not actually benefit equally from doing that activity (and in some cases are actually detrimentally affected by doing that very same activity) | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 18:04 | comment | added | Thomas Markov | Are you saying that if I were subject to the Rakshasa's effect, I could swap out spells at the end of the long rest, but only if I made some poor choices? | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 18:02 | comment | added | illustro | It would be nice to know what in particular about this answer warranted a downvote (if there is some inaccuracy in it I'd like to correct it) | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 17:56 | history | edited | illustro | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 957 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2021 at 17:35 | history | answered | illustro | CC BY-SA 4.0 |