Level Up (A5E) Seen Spell Component and Incapacitated Condition

[Vilify]

So I took a look at a few online spell lists that have good filtering, and so I did some quick hunting to see.... is there actually any spells that you could cast using this loophole?

The answer so far is 0.... and that's looking at all spells let alone sorcerer ones. There are very very few spells that are V only or S only and a bonus action....and once you add in the sight clause it drops to 0.

A Warlock/sorcerer multiclass can subtle spell cast Infernal weapon while unconscious by the logic, as it does not have concentration, does not have to target someone seen. The spell would go off, then immediately fizzle out as your hand cannot hold the weapon while unconscious. This seems extremely silly, and unintended.

You also do not need to be aware of your surroundings in order to cast healing word upon yourself. Sorcerer/Cleric multiclass subtle spell healing word on self, get back up from unconscious condition on your own. If that isn't a bit game breaking, I'm not sure what is.

The wording for Incapacitated is meant to imply you cannot take actions nor bonus actions. This is understood and reiterated outside of WoTC for O5e, as well as on their sage advice. It also unfortunately happens to be the exact same wording as WoTC's version for our AG in A5e. This loop hole isn't one that seems intended to be exploited, and is just awkward wording.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yeeeeeah... That was incredibly condescending, @Vilify.

As for the rest of the discussion vis a vis Unconscious: "You are unaware of your surroundings" is in addition to Incapacitation. Meaning you can't target anything for Misty Step, Bonus Action Attacks, or other activities because... well. You're unconscious.

They also -specifically- add "You can't move or speak". Meaning an Incapacitated character -can- both move and speak even if they can't take actions or reactions.

And since Speaking is a "Free Action" on your turn we can infer that "Actions" in the Incapacitated definition doesn't include -all- actions (Action, Bonus Action, and Free Action)

Maybe you're right. Maybe they'll specifically note that Bonus Actions are a type of Action for Incapacitated... Maybe they won't.

After all, you can still Move and Rogues can Dash as a bonus action. Or hide. Or pick a pocket (Depending on subclass). Monks, too, with the dashing.

 

[Vilify]

Yeeeeeah... That was incredibly condescending, @Vilify.

As for the rest of the discussion vis a vis Unconscious: "You are unaware of your surroundings" is in addition to Incapacitation. Meaning you can't target anything for Misty Step, Bonus Action Attacks, or other activities because... well. You're unconscious.

They also -specifically- add "You can't move or speak". Meaning an Incapacitated character -can- both move and speak even if they can't take actions or reactions.

And since Speaking is a "Free Action" on your turn we can infer that "Actions" in the Incapacitated definition doesn't include -all- actions (Action, Bonus Action, and Free Action)

Maybe you're right. Maybe they'll specifically note that Bonus Actions are a type of Action for Incapacitated... Maybe they won't.

After all, you can still Move and Rogues can Dash as a bonus action. Or hide. Or pick a pocket (Depending on subclass). Monks, too, with the dashing.

I'm not sure what you interpreted as condescending exactly, I'm just arguing for an interpretation, apologies if it seemed that way.

I believe what you're saying is understood by both of us, my point in it is that @Stalker0 's rules lawyer argument doesn't hold up, and I was giving examples using his point to prove the unintended consequences of his statement. This really only started after the discussion was pushed towards his disagreement with my interpretation.

 

[Satirical Bard]

If incapacitated is meant to also bar bonus actions, would it not be simple enough to update the text here to do the same, while all the other editing is happening right now?

It certainly makes no sense to me that this loophole is intended.

Or better yet, add in a definition of bonus actions like the o5e basic rules does, where it says "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

 

[niklinna]

And reactions?

 

[ElliottBalding]

If incapacitated is meant to also bar bonus actions, would it not be simple enough to update the text here to do the same, while all the other editing is happening right now?

It certainly makes no sense to me that this loophole is intended.

Or better yet, add in a definition of bonus actions like the o5e basic rules does, where it says "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

totally agree

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sure what you interpreted as condescending exactly, I'm just arguing for an interpretation, apologies if it seemed that way.

I believe what you're saying is understood by both of us, my point in it is that @Stalker0 's rules lawyer argument doesn't hold up, and I was giving examples using his point to prove the unintended consequences of his statement. This really only started after the discussion was pushed towards his disagreement with my interpretation.

Yeah I did not consider your rebuttal condescending, I felt it was a direct logical counter to what I had proposed so far.

However, there is one thing you mentioned that is also really interesting..... can a blind person actually target themselves with healing word? By the most literal interpretation....I would say no. While you always have the option to target your self when your given a choice of targeting a creature, the clause never says that it overwrites any other aspect of the targeting requirements.

For for example if a spell says "any beast"....you could not switch that to target yourself, because you are not a beast. By that same logic, "a creature you can see" would still mean "yourself.....that you can see". So healing word would actually not work on you.

(also note, this is me having fun putting on the rules lawyer hat. As a DM....I would never stop a cleric healing themselves while blind, as I think that would be silly)

 

[ElliottBalding]

And reactions?

reactions can be taken off your turn so they are mentioned separately already

 

[Steampunkette]

"Skirt the Rules" "Loop Holes" "Pick and Choose" were the specific bits that I felt condescended.

As if I weren't just interpreting the rules as written, but inventing sophistry in order to circumvent the rules, or ignoring the rules that existed that would stop me from doing something outside of rules as written.

I acknowledge I could very well be wrong about Incapacitated allowing bonus actions. I just hope I'm not because it opens up interesting options and pokes holes in some particular situations where "Save or Suck" is the name of the game in O5e.

 

[Vilify]

Yeah I did not consider your rebuttal condescending, I felt it was a direct logical counter to what I had proposed so far.

However, there is one thing you mentioned that is also really interesting..... can a blind person actually target themselves with healing word? By the most literal interpretation....I would say no. While you always have the option to target your self when your given a choice of targeting a creature, the clause never says that it overwrites any other aspect of the targeting requirements.

For for example if a spell says "any beast"....you could not switch that to target yourself, because you are not a beast. By that same logic, "a creature you can see" would still mean "yourself.....that you can see". So healing word would actually not work on you.

(also note, this is me having fun putting on the rules lawyer hat. As a DM....I would never stop a cleric healing themselves while blind, as I think that would be silly)

I haven't looked at o5e in this context, but for A5e's Spellcasting Targeting rules, check out P. 494 which states, "Some, but not all, spells have a target listed in the spell block. This type of spell operates on the specified type of creatures or objects within range. For instance, the target of a charm person spell is a “humanoid creature.” Unless the spell indicates otherwise, the spellcaster is a valid target of a spell which acts on a creature or creatures." The next paragraph explains that there must be no total cover between you and the target, or if they're unwilling, you must know their exact location.

Healing Word(A5e version) specifically does not state anything about seeing your target, only a target within 60 feet that isn't undead or a construct.