Can an evocation wizard protect themself with spell sculpting?What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?With the 2019 Sage Advice Compendium release, are Jeremy Crawford's tweets considered to be “official rulings”?Would a caster's AoE spell hit the caster?Does Nondetection plus Invisibility hide you from the The Third Eye Wizard ability?Can a Goblin boss redirect attacks to non allied goblins?How might my unwitting houseruling of Sculpt Spell affect play?Can a paralyzed creature targeted by an Evocation Wizard's Sculpt Spells feature actually succeed a Dex save?What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?How does the Melf's Minute Meteors spell interact with the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?Can a dragon's breath weapon pass through Leomund's Tiny Hut?
What is the purpose of Strength, Intelligence and Dexterity in Path of Exile?
Old scifi book featuring krakens attacking humans
Did the Apollo Guidance Computer really use 60% of the world's ICs in 1963?
Was a six-engine 747 ever seriously considered by Boeing?
Get contents before a colon
Are spot colors limited and why CMYK mix is not treated same as spot color mix?
Why does the weaker C–H bond have a higher wavenumber than the C=O bond?
Generic Extension Method To Count Descendants
Board Chinese train at a different station (on-route)
Generic method to call API functions with simple retrial on errors
Why does `buck` mean `step-down`?
Where does the last newline character come from in this sed's result?
Blank screen when reusing a previous mail (Mosaico)
Don't look at what I did there
Can two aircraft stay on the same runway at the same time?
What is this "opened" cube called?
Defending Castle from Zombies
How to differentiate between two people with the same name in a story?
How did medieval manors handle population growth? Was there room for more fields to be ploughed?
How can I reply to coworkers who accuse me of automating people out of work?
How can I fix cracks between the bathtub and the wall surround?
Why do IR remotes influence AM radios?
Are sweatpants frowned upon on flights?
Necessity of tenure for lifetime academic research
Can an evocation wizard protect themself with spell sculpting?
What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?With the 2019 Sage Advice Compendium release, are Jeremy Crawford's tweets considered to be “official rulings”?Would a caster's AoE spell hit the caster?Does Nondetection plus Invisibility hide you from the The Third Eye Wizard ability?Can a Goblin boss redirect attacks to non allied goblins?How might my unwitting houseruling of Sculpt Spell affect play?Can a paralyzed creature targeted by an Evocation Wizard's Sculpt Spells feature actually succeed a Dex save?What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?How does the Melf's Minute Meteors spell interact with the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?Can a dragon's breath weapon pass through Leomund's Tiny Hut?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
At 2nd level, a Wizard of the Evocation School gains the Sculpt Spells feature (PHB p 117).
Sculpt Spells
Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.
By RAW, it seems as if evocation wizards are unable to protect themselves against fireballs they cast in their space even if they can protect their nearby friends. These seems to go against the flavor of the spell sculpting feature.
In the ALFAQ_v82.pdf, it says:
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not your DM chooses to utilize them for rules adjudication in is at their discretion; as always, the DM remains the final arbiter of rule disputes.
That seems to allow for a little discretion on the part of an AL DM to weigh Sage Advice against the RAW.
With this tweet from Mike Mearls, along with any other evidence and logic that can be added, how should an AL DM should rule on this?
Question: An evocator wizard using Sculpt Spell can be one the creatures who automatically succeed on their saving throws?
Mike Mearls: Yes - effect applies to creatures you can see, so you can apply it to yourself.
(Added after some discussion) I understand the RAW in the PHB. It's very clear. I am asking how an AL DM should resolve this RAW vs this designer tweet in light of the AL FAQ which says that such tweets help indicate designer intent. Is it clear in this case that an AL DM should rule one way or the other or does an AL DM have enough flexibility to define the ruling how they would like?
This question about whether JC's tweets are still official may be relevant to my question.
dnd-5e class-feature wizard dnd-adventurers-league targeting
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 2nd level, a Wizard of the Evocation School gains the Sculpt Spells feature (PHB p 117).
Sculpt Spells
Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.
By RAW, it seems as if evocation wizards are unable to protect themselves against fireballs they cast in their space even if they can protect their nearby friends. These seems to go against the flavor of the spell sculpting feature.
In the ALFAQ_v82.pdf, it says:
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not your DM chooses to utilize them for rules adjudication in is at their discretion; as always, the DM remains the final arbiter of rule disputes.
That seems to allow for a little discretion on the part of an AL DM to weigh Sage Advice against the RAW.
With this tweet from Mike Mearls, along with any other evidence and logic that can be added, how should an AL DM should rule on this?
Question: An evocator wizard using Sculpt Spell can be one the creatures who automatically succeed on their saving throws?
Mike Mearls: Yes - effect applies to creatures you can see, so you can apply it to yourself.
(Added after some discussion) I understand the RAW in the PHB. It's very clear. I am asking how an AL DM should resolve this RAW vs this designer tweet in light of the AL FAQ which says that such tweets help indicate designer intent. Is it clear in this case that an AL DM should rule one way or the other or does an AL DM have enough flexibility to define the ruling how they would like?
This question about whether JC's tweets are still official may be relevant to my question.
dnd-5e class-feature wizard dnd-adventurers-league targeting
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 2nd level, a Wizard of the Evocation School gains the Sculpt Spells feature (PHB p 117).
Sculpt Spells
Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.
By RAW, it seems as if evocation wizards are unable to protect themselves against fireballs they cast in their space even if they can protect their nearby friends. These seems to go against the flavor of the spell sculpting feature.
In the ALFAQ_v82.pdf, it says:
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not your DM chooses to utilize them for rules adjudication in is at their discretion; as always, the DM remains the final arbiter of rule disputes.
That seems to allow for a little discretion on the part of an AL DM to weigh Sage Advice against the RAW.
With this tweet from Mike Mearls, along with any other evidence and logic that can be added, how should an AL DM should rule on this?
Question: An evocator wizard using Sculpt Spell can be one the creatures who automatically succeed on their saving throws?
Mike Mearls: Yes - effect applies to creatures you can see, so you can apply it to yourself.
(Added after some discussion) I understand the RAW in the PHB. It's very clear. I am asking how an AL DM should resolve this RAW vs this designer tweet in light of the AL FAQ which says that such tweets help indicate designer intent. Is it clear in this case that an AL DM should rule one way or the other or does an AL DM have enough flexibility to define the ruling how they would like?
This question about whether JC's tweets are still official may be relevant to my question.
dnd-5e class-feature wizard dnd-adventurers-league targeting
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
At 2nd level, a Wizard of the Evocation School gains the Sculpt Spells feature (PHB p 117).
Sculpt Spells
Beginning at 2nd level, you can create pockets of relative safety within the effects of your evocation spells. When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level. The chosen creatures automatically succeed on their saving throws against the spell, and they take no damage if they would normally take half damage on a successful save.
By RAW, it seems as if evocation wizards are unable to protect themselves against fireballs they cast in their space even if they can protect their nearby friends. These seems to go against the flavor of the spell sculpting feature.
In the ALFAQ_v82.pdf, it says:
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not your DM chooses to utilize them for rules adjudication in is at their discretion; as always, the DM remains the final arbiter of rule disputes.
That seems to allow for a little discretion on the part of an AL DM to weigh Sage Advice against the RAW.
With this tweet from Mike Mearls, along with any other evidence and logic that can be added, how should an AL DM should rule on this?
Question: An evocator wizard using Sculpt Spell can be one the creatures who automatically succeed on their saving throws?
Mike Mearls: Yes - effect applies to creatures you can see, so you can apply it to yourself.
(Added after some discussion) I understand the RAW in the PHB. It's very clear. I am asking how an AL DM should resolve this RAW vs this designer tweet in light of the AL FAQ which says that such tweets help indicate designer intent. Is it clear in this case that an AL DM should rule one way or the other or does an AL DM have enough flexibility to define the ruling how they would like?
This question about whether JC's tweets are still official may be relevant to my question.
dnd-5e class-feature wizard dnd-adventurers-league targeting
dnd-5e class-feature wizard dnd-adventurers-league targeting
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
edited 3 hours ago
Nick Brown
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Nick BrownNick Brown
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
6,6353 gold badges23 silver badges46 bronze badges
5
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There's nothing in the text that suggests that the intention was for the Evocation Wizard to be able to include himself.
As you pointed out, the Sculpt Spells feature reads (emphasis mine):
When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.
There is no ambiguity here. Both RAW and RAI, the Evocation Wizard cannot apply the feature to himself. Mearls was answering for how he would treat the feature at his table, not how it was intended to work normally (or at least, if that was his intention, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the text).
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f154381%2fcan-an-evocation-wizard-protect-themself-with-spell-sculpting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There's nothing in the text that suggests that the intention was for the Evocation Wizard to be able to include himself.
As you pointed out, the Sculpt Spells feature reads (emphasis mine):
When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.
There is no ambiguity here. Both RAW and RAI, the Evocation Wizard cannot apply the feature to himself. Mearls was answering for how he would treat the feature at his table, not how it was intended to work normally (or at least, if that was his intention, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the text).
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
There's nothing in the text that suggests that the intention was for the Evocation Wizard to be able to include himself.
As you pointed out, the Sculpt Spells feature reads (emphasis mine):
When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.
There is no ambiguity here. Both RAW and RAI, the Evocation Wizard cannot apply the feature to himself. Mearls was answering for how he would treat the feature at his table, not how it was intended to work normally (or at least, if that was his intention, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the text).
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
There's nothing in the text that suggests that the intention was for the Evocation Wizard to be able to include himself.
As you pointed out, the Sculpt Spells feature reads (emphasis mine):
When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.
There is no ambiguity here. Both RAW and RAI, the Evocation Wizard cannot apply the feature to himself. Mearls was answering for how he would treat the feature at his table, not how it was intended to work normally (or at least, if that was his intention, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the text).
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
$endgroup$
There's nothing in the text that suggests that the intention was for the Evocation Wizard to be able to include himself.
As you pointed out, the Sculpt Spells feature reads (emphasis mine):
When you cast an evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 + the spell’s level.
There is no ambiguity here. Both RAW and RAI, the Evocation Wizard cannot apply the feature to himself. Mearls was answering for how he would treat the feature at his table, not how it was intended to work normally (or at least, if that was his intention, he was mistaken in his interpretation of the text).
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
CacseCacse
3229 bronze badges
3229 bronze badges
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).
$endgroup$
– Nick Brown
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems a gross oversight though and a ludicrous one at that. I definitely allow it in my games because if you can exclude a square of a fireball for your fighter why couldn't you exclude a square for yourself?
$endgroup$
– Slagmoth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown According to Crawford, RAI is to be considered when "the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent", i.e. when there is ambiguity present in the text. Here there is none: the intent is clear. Furthermore, designers can be mistaken after the fact about what the intention of a piece of text was. If the text says "P is true", and the designers later reply on Twitter, "That line actually means P is false", that should not be regarded as RAI until an errata is published.
$endgroup$
– Cacse
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NickBrown Mike Mearls is free to tweet how he'd do something just as much as any of us are. It gives us insight into how he'd do it at his table, but not necessarily the intent for the actual rule and it's definitely not an official intent/ruling. It's just directional as to how he'd do it and not confirmation and refutation of the rules.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm honestly not sure if bringing in the RAI argument is helping you here (but I upvoted you because overall you are spot-on.) THe language of Sculpt Spells is very clear in the bolded highlights you've emphasized. It's for other creatures. The caster is pretty clearly not under that umbrella. This answer incorporates the same thing.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f154381%2fcan-an-evocation-wizard-protect-themself-with-spell-sculpting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
FYI, Sage Advice is a document that WoTC 'publishes' online and is separate from the tweets that the designers send. Crawford's tweets used to carry weight as 'official' (and was the only designer who had that), but they have rescinded that and now it's just the document. Sageadvice.eu is a website operated by a third party who consolidates their tweets and has no relation to WoTC or their published Sage Advice.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Related on What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature?.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago