"If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell."
Based on a RAW interpretation, I only need one of the listed components to cast a spell. The phrase "one or more" means one at a minimum. "Two or more" would mean two at a minimum. And if all components were required, it'd say, "If you can't provide all of a spell's components..."
I've been getting hounded on Reddit with everyone disagreeing with me on this reading. Who is right, though? My RAW (rules as written) interpretation? Or their RAI (rules as intended) interpretation?
Some spells list several choices that you can pick one of. Others require several different components.
For instance:
Dancing Lights needs "a bit of phosphorous or wychwood, or a glow worm." Here you have three choices, a bit of phosphorouse, a bit of wychwood, or a glow worm. You only need one of the three.
Compare to Comprehend Languages: "a pinch of soot and salt." Here you need both a pinch of soot and a pinch of salt.
Sometimes it's complicated. Chain Lightning needs "a bit of fur; a piece of amber, glass, or a crystal rod; and three silver pins." So you need a bit of fur, you need three silver pins, and you need one of a piece of amber, a piece of glass, or a crystal rod.
So pretty much, just read the spell and follow what it says.
Your "RAW" argument doesn't make any sense to me. If a spell requires A and B and you only provide A, then you are not providing one or more components (namely B). So the spell won't work.
I agree that it depends on the wording of the spell. Some are "and", some are "or".
In addition you have it backwards. It could also have said that if you cannot provide every component, and are missing even one you can't cast the spell. But this rarely comes up in any game I've been in, unless there's a component cost or you have no access to your items it's assumed that you have the component.
MagCynic wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I get the ambiguity now. You're inverting both terms to say that you can cast the spell if you can provide one or more components.
That is certainly not what it means, the correct reading is that if you cannot provide (ie, you are missing) one or more components, then you cannot cast the spell.
The wording is interesting, I wouldn't say you're making a logic error. And they could have expressed it more definitively. But I would never write it they way they did if I meant the interpretation you're seeing. And that seems to be a widely held opinion, which is what counts in the end. 
jaelis wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the wording since it is talking about if you fail to provide components, not if you succeed at providing components.
Miss one (or more) and the spell doesn't work.
It says the "or more" part so that rules-lawyering goofballs don't say "It says I can't cast the spell if I fail to provide one component. Doesn't say I can't cast it if I fail to provide two components, which means I can cast the spell when doing so."
Sure, it might be less unclear if it simply said "You must provide all of a spell's components in order to cast that spell."
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I can see how the misunderstanding occurs. The alternative reading makes more sense as a possibility when you consider some other cases where it would be correct (with something other than a spell and its components).
For example:
- If you can't provide one or more breaths of air, you are unable to inflate the balloon.
- If you can't provide one or more colours, you are unable to paint a picture.
- If you can't provide one or more references, you are unable to apply for the job.
There isn't actually much in the component description to contradict it being this, apart from it talking about the components as being requirements (plural) for the spell, which isn't exactly a rock-solid logical statement on the matter.
I really feel sorry for the devs. If something like "If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell." isn't clear I doubt any other phrase would have satisfied everyone.
Actually, the clear part is
A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.
jaelis wrote:
Your reading is
if !(number_of_components_provided >= 1) then fail
Most people read it as:
if number_of_components_not_provided >=1 then fail
If A then B is not the same as if -A then -B
MagCynic wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Oh, wow. This is like one of those optical illusions where you think it's a duck, but everyone's like "no its a rabbit," and then you see the rabbit if you turn it on its side. I finally figured out how the confusion could happen.
"One or more" basically means "any number," right? "If you can't provide any number of the components, you can't cast the spell." I.e. if there is any number of components you can't provide, you can't cast. With the effect that you need every component listed.
But "one or more" also means "at least one." "If you can't provide at least one or more of the components, you can't cast the spell." With the effect that if you provide any component, you can cast. (Or more specifically, if you don't fail to provide at least one component, you aren't disallowed from casting.)
No, you know what this is like? It's like the shirt thing that exploded on Facebook.
Anyway I'd be with Slagger there, why the F would they "allow" expensive components when you could just throw gang signs or mumble and ignore them.
@Noct, that would make core correct. Though at second brush I don't think it answers anything in this case.
A: "You can't cast if you can't provide one or more components."
B: "I can provide one or more components."
A: "Ah, then this restriction is irrelevant to you."
And you'd then default to either "you can cast a spell unless specifically restricted" or "you can't cast a spell unless specifically permitted." So it doesn't disprove the OP's case.
"If it doesn't have an engine = it's not a car" does not mean "If it has an engine = it's a car", that's not how logic works.
Likewise "if you fail to provide one or more of the components you can't cast the spell" =/= "If you provided one or more of the components you can cast the spell".
Hell simple logic shows the break down. The inverse of "you fail to provide one or more of the components" is "you provide all the components". If you don't provide all the components, you've not inversed it since you've "fail[ed] to provide one or more of the components".
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
"If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell."
If you are unable to provide even a single compenent (i.e. one or more) listed as required, then you are unable to cast the spell. It does in fact state that if you cannot provide all the required componenets that you cannnot cast the spell. That's why it uses the words "can't" and "unable."
You are misreading the rule as, "If you can provide one or more of a spells componentes, you are able to cast the spell."
Your "RAW" interpritaion is wrong because that is not what is written.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
The point is..... the rule in question gives you a condition for *not* being allowed to cast the spell. It gives you *NO* information or conditions that say you *can* cast the spell. The lack of a restriction is *not* the same as getting permission.
Analogy: If one or more of your parents are not an orc, then you can not be the Orc King. This does not tell us anything about what it takes to be the Orc King, only what might prevent it
So, if you don't have 1 of the components, you can't cast the spell
If you don't have 2 of the components, you can't cast the spell
If you don't have 3 of the components, you can't cast the spell
.
If you don't have any of the components, you can't cast the spell
So... when *can* we cast the spell.....?? Some of you are making the mistake of assuming that this rule tells us when you *can* cast the spell.... it does no such thing. The absence of a restriction is *not* the same as getting permission.
Its a simple If/Then statement...
Are you missing 1 or more components? Yes means you can't cast. No means..... well nothing really.... it just means that this rule does not apply.
If you want information about when you *can* cast a spell, you need to find a rule that gives you permission to cast.... not one that only applies a restriction.
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Saeviomagy wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
nononononononononono
that's not how english works
this is creating what's called an 'or' clause
so you have 2 things that could happen; either you cannot provide one of the spell components OR you cannot provide more than one of the spell components.
BOTH of these cases have the same result; you cannot cast the spell.
tl;dr have components cast spell,
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I'm not seeing the ambiguity...
"If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell." One being one, and "or more" being any number greater than one.
So since we're dealing with integers within the range of {0, 1, 2, ... }, if you can't provide 0 components (which is to say, you can provide all of the components), you are able to cast the spell, else "if you can't provide one or more of the spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.". And this "if-else" covers what to do for the entire data set.
Spell X has 3 components. I can supply 3 of them, therefore I can't provide 0 of the spell's components. I am able to cast the spell.
Spell X has 3 components. I can supply 2 of them, therefore I can't provide 1 of the spell's components. I am unable to cast the spell.
Spell X has 3 components. I can supply 1 of them, therefore I can't provide 2 (ie. "or more") of the spell's components. I am unable to cast the spell.
Spell X has 3 components. I can supply 0 of them, therefore I can't provide 3 (ie. "or more") of the spell's components. I am unable to cast the spell.
This sentence's only interpretation is that unless I provide ALL components (ie. can't provide 0 of them) required to cast a spell, I am unable to cast the spell. Providing some, but not all of the components does me no good. Providing all but one component and providing none of the components have the same end result: I am unable to cast the spell.
So people are reading it as though it says its inverse? "If you can provide one or more of the spell's components, you are able to cast the spell."?
Coredump00 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
"If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell."
I can't help but notice, nowhere in this sentence does it actually require that I do the components, merely that I am -able- to do so. Am I able to speak? Yes, but I need not do so thus the spell can be cast silently.
In other words, I think this argument is crazy. There have been several reasonable responses covering why it works the way it does. Language is an imperfect medium. The PHB is written very well though. Apply logic to the context of a passage, not single sentences taken alone, and then move on.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MagCynic wrote:
I can't believe that you are still discussing this even though it's completely normal English. I still don't get why some people think only providing one material is enough, even when going by RAW.
For fun, this is how it would look as sourcecode:
bool cancastspell(int provided, int needed) {
int notprovided = needed - provided;
if(notprovided >= 1) {
return false;
}
[...]
return true;
}
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
The logical negation of can't provide one or can't provide more is can provide one AND can provide more.
So to negate the sentence:
If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast a spell
If you can't provide one or you can't provide more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast a spell.
...
If you can provide one AND you can provide more of a spell's components, you are able to cast a spell.
So if a spell has 3 components, and you can't provide one or more means you can't provide 1 of 3, or can't provide 2 of 3, or can't provide 3 of 3,
the negation is
you can provide 1 of 3 AND 2 of 3 AND 3 of 3... you can provide all of them.
I hope that clears things up. People are not logically negating the sentence properly. They are producing a false inverse statement from a true statement.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Right. Mapping out the logic of the sentence makes a smokescreen of false certainty; the problem isn't in that logic. It's in the step before that, where you're figuring out how to map the sentence into logical terms in the first place.
An easier way to demonstrate the difference:
Say a caster tries to cast a spell with only 1 of the listed 3 components. There are two valid ways to ask them if they are following the rule, with different results.
Q1: You can't cast if you can't provide one or more components. Can you provide one or more components?
A: Yes. (Provided 1 component of 3 listed.)
Then, you can cast.
Q2: You can't cast if you can't provide one or more components. Are there one or more components that you can't provide?
A: Yes. (Couldn't provide 2 components of 3 listed.)
Then, you can't cast.
The language of the first question works fine, so you have to find a logical expression that lets those sentences work. The issue is which reading is supported by the context, and I think we've all agreed it's the second. Just not based on that one sentence.
But the rules don't say "You can cast if you provide one or more components" they say "You can't cast if you can't provide one or more components". These two are completely different.
vonklaude wrote:
We already know the value(s) of T, it's the set N, excluding 0. The only other number in that set is 0. So NotT=0.
MagCynic wrote:
MagCynic wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
t
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
The problem is that p then q equals to (not) p then (not) q is not a logical law in regards to adding or eliminating the word not in front of complex structures. In order to equate the two, you need to provide a logical relationship between p and (not) p. In other words, you are actually creating, like I did, a situation where you have p then q, establishing a logical equivalency between p and r (which is your hypothetical not p) and then replacing r with q. If a logical rule existed where p then q leads to (not) p then (not) q, it would be found in the Rules of Inference. There is no such rule; the closest rule is Modus tollens which essentially states (not) q and (p then q) then (not) p.
In either case, proving whether the assertion that "If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell" and "If you can provide one or more of a spell's components, you are able to cast the spell" have a direct logical relationship is easy. We provide a spell with three components, verbal, somatic and material. We then set conditions: we provide two components, verbal and somatic, but fail to provide one component, the material component.
"If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell" is equal to if P > 0 then U (where U is unable to cast the spell). Since we didn't provide the material component, P is greater than 0, and we are unable to cast the spell. On the other hand, we have the statement of "If you can provide one or more of a spell's components, you are able to cast the spell" or if R > 0, then C where C is equal to the ability to cast a spell. We provided two components which fulfills the condition and according to our hypothesis are able to cast the spell.
Since U and C can't be true at the same time in the same situation, P, components not provided, and R, components provided, do not have a direct logical relationship. As I showed in a previous post, they do have an indirect relationship through the value T, but "you can't provide one or more of a spell's components" and "you can provide one or more of a spell's components" don't have a logical relationship.
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The only bit that's really under debate is whether anyone could validly read it more than one way. I'm pretty flexible about accomodating different ideas and viewpoints, so it didn't take much for me to see how the alternate reading worked.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
The problem here is that people are incorrectly trying to apply the contraposition rule. The opposite of "If you can't provide one ore more components, you are unable to cast the spell" is not "If you can provide one or more components, you can cast the spell." The opposite of failing to provide one or more components is providing all components, so the contrapositive sentence is "If you can provide all components, you able to cast the spell."
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Arguing about Rules as Written when you have already agreed on Rules as Intended is a baffling phenomenon, even for the internet. Cockroach Anthropolgists will study it some day.
Yunru wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
This thread must be supplying the folks at WotC with endless laughter! 
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I still disagree because what's being discussed in this thread is essentially formal logic within a chosen system. If you didn't imply formal logic then that's fine, but considering what the subject matter is I didn't think you would honestly try to pull this card.
I already wrote what I believe: formal logic cannot be the foundation of language. Instead I would posit that logic and ontology are abstractions from language.
If it's immaterial why did you bring it up and why are you now trying to dismiss it from the discussion after having a bunch of people tell you you're wrong? lol
just poking fun.
Noctaem wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
If you can't provide one or more components you can't cast the spell.
If X=/=Y, you can't cast the spell. (Where X is the number of components you provide)
Inverted you get:
You can cast the spell if X=Y.
Which is:
You can cast the spell if you can provide all components.
You have Y components to a spell.
If you can't provide one or more components you can't cast the spell.
If Y>X, you can't cast the spell. (Where X is the number of components you provide)
Inverted you get:
You can cast the spell if X>=Y.
Which is:
You can cast the spell if you can provide all or more components.
Edit: Mobile formatting seems to have problems with <.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Oh wow. This is still going on. I'm not sure if this is the funniest or saddest thread I have ever read.
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
vonklaude wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote: