D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

[5ekyu]

Satyrn

Regarding your recent series about no RAW, no two case alike etc...

I do not think anybody has argued that Elfcrusher cannot adopt any house rules in his game for whatever reason they are desired by he and his players and the consent of those involved.

What has been a pretty serious disagreement over particulars has been the attempt to repeatedly portray his FALLS not FALLING ruling as valid within RAW or more specifically the actual INTENT of the designers.

Now, as it turns out, apparently its not about what the trigger says or the intent of the trigger FALL vs FALLING but is about how the player is trying to use their ability to choose when to use their reaction.

Which would seem to mean a lot of Elfcrusher claims about FALLS vs FALLINg and intent of the trigger are not exactly relevant anymore.

As for the "trap" it was a very simple case - i find it wonderfully telling that a specific example of using a ruling is seemingly so dangerous that it cannot be addressed without branding it as a trap.

It seems obvious that if one believes the trigger is the start of f all and not the ongoing act of falling that not being able to cast due to not seeing/perceiving/aware of a reaction to "start of the fall" and only coming in after that has passed but the "falling ongoing" stage is reached is a direct and logical consequence of that decision to treat trigger as "start of fall and not falling". (which now seems to have been reversed?)

There is no "trap" there except my bet is that most anybody who has seen feather fall used in games would have almost no belief that using FF to catch the drop out of darkness was somehow against the rules due to the trigger case.

Its not a trap to show the obvious consequences of a ruling if it is applied consistently in cases that might be ecnountered. Its normally just called reasoning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The answer to the problem is to read the entire trigger.

When you or a creature within 60' of you falls.

So, there's still only one trigger: when the falling creature does so within 60' of you. You can cast feather fall then or ignore that trigger.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, its OK for feather fall to be triggered by "falling" unless it is used in a way that you dont like them using it for and that is not "punitive sort of GMing" in your mind?

But if you felt it was not about FALLS vs FALLING (as you now claim) how does this part from you make any sense in that context just a few posts up?

"However, that doesn't address my other main point: that every single other reaction in the game (that I have found so far) is a reaction to a discrete event...a moment in time...not an ongoing process. I realize you can split semantic hairs and say that an ongoing fall is an infinite sequence of discrete events, but I truly hope you're not really going to make that cheesy argument. Instead, I'm wondering if you:"


i mean, its not (now?) about the fall (event) vs the falling (process) so why is that very distinction a "main point" for you a few posts up?

Why was that difference important for the counterspell rebuttal of yours??

And again you come back to punitive GMing - not punishing a player by adding in a splat mechanic where one did not exist.

Ok so...

If a character with feather fall standing on the ground sees a prince plummet out of the darkness that covers the view from say 20' up, just comes into view at 20' up already in "falling mode" would you allow the character to feather fall the prince as the spell suggests or would you force an acrobatics check (cuz you know acrobatics and spell casting are somehow linked) of Dc15 with 10' drop per 1 fail (so barring some proficiency or dex bonus a roll of 13+ is needed to avoid splat?

Would the answer change if the prince was the one who could cast feather fall?

Would the answer change if at that moment the character on the ground also "fell" from a different source?

To me, adjusting how a given established mechanic works (feather fall can be triggered as a reaction to falling, not just to the start of fa fall) but then applying a roll for check/fail if you decide they did not practice a specific application back in their undefined and not agreed upon pre-game training days... in a way that can lead to dead character... would be a decision that if I made it as a Gm i would be not surprised at all for it to be viewed as "punitive GMing" as well as a change to the rules we have been using. its why i dont tend to make those kind of decisions.

You're making it way too complicated.

The prince starts falling and says "Oh $%&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

The wizard sees the prince falling and says "Oh $%#&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

Before you start having a cow over the paradox in there, though, let me ask you this: can the prince's evil twin cancel the wizard's Feather Fall by casting Counterspell?

But rather than set a trap so I can gloat I'll just explain my thinking: if Feather Fall is instantaneous, or close to it, then how is there a "process of casting" to interrupt? Oh no! Another paradox.

I don't worry about. The evil twin can cancel Feather Fall because that is how Counterspell works.

 

[5ekyu]

You're making it way too complicated.

The prince starts falling and says "Oh $%&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

The wizard sees the prince falling and says "Oh $%#&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

Before you start having a cow over the paradox in there, though, let me ask you this: can the prince's evil twin cancel the wizard's Feather Fall by casting Counterspell?

But rather than set a trap so I can gloat I'll just explain my thinking: if Feather Fall is instantaneous, or close to it, then how is there a "process of casting" to interrupt? Oh no! Another paradox.

I don't worry about. The evil twin can cancel Feather Fall because that is how Counterspell works.

So now you are even inventing traps set by your own posts and then avoiding them yourself? Wow! That was just amazing.

But sorry, i did not see any contradiction with what you described for any of those spells in that circumstance and the way the RAW reads and the spells work and how AFAIK they have been generally played (noting of course that in previous editions the reaction etc definitions were different as far as what actions types were called.) i did not have to invoke a lack of scuba training for mages for counterspell use to detemine that yeah, FF can be counterspelled.





i would say keeping to the spell as it is portrayed is actually not overthinking it when compared to trying to setup that during the pre-game training the wizard sat in a library and did not do HALO training for his acrobatics check" to justify adding a splat roll to a rather rarely used counter to falling type spell.

 

[5ekyu]

You're making it way too complicated.

The prince starts falling and says "Oh $%&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

The wizard sees the prince falling and says "Oh $%#&!" and reacts by casting Feather Fall.

Before you start having a cow over the paradox in there, though, let me ask you this: can the prince's evil twin cancel the wizard's Feather Fall by casting Counterspell?

But rather than set a trap so I can gloat I'll just explain my thinking: if Feather Fall is instantaneous, or close to it, then how is there a "process of casting" to interrupt? Oh no! Another paradox.

I don't worry about. The evil twin can cancel Feather Fall because that is how Counterspell works.

i notice you actually cut out the prince casting his own feather fall when he emerges from the darkness - was that an oversight or a deliberate exclusion to show its not possible or a deliberate exclusion to avoid an answer you don not want to give?

EDIT by cut out i mean avoided answering or chose to see it as a different case - not actually like cutting out or editing a post.

just want to be clear there in case the wording bothers some folks

 

[Satyrn]

i would say keeping to the spell as it is portrayed is actually not overthinking it when compared to trying to setup that during the pre-game training the wizard sat in a library and did not do HALO training for his acrobatics check" to justify adding a splat roll to a rather rarely used counter to falling type spell.

What do you mean by "'a splat roll?

I've never seen the phrase used before.

 

[5ekyu]

What do you mean by "'a splat roll?

I've never seen the phrase used before.

I was referencing the earlier Elfcrusher opinion/ruling/RAW-insight (whatever) that went something like

You can trigger your feather fall while falling after the initial start of fall if your caster makes an acrobatics check of DC15. if you fail you miss your point of casting for falling by 10' per miss point and if you end up hitting bottom from that shift you take the falling damage

splat roll used in a sentence

"make this splat roll for a newly invented check to see if you go splat from feather fall failure in this circumstance (which is not like any other and does not have to follow anything i have ruled before) but do not call this at all a player hostile ruling cuz it is a valid interpretation of RAW not something i cooked up on the fly because i did not like your decision to fall a bit before casting FF."

 

[Satyrn]

I . . . that looks like you fell into a trap I never realized I set.

Like how last night, my halfling druid intimidated a stable owner into giving me a flock of horses without realizing I was doing so. I mean, sure, I said he "wasn't gonna end up dead like his bandit buddies," but I meant to put him at ease assure him there was no bad blood.

I really wasn't trying to get the horses for free.

 

[5ekyu]

BTW i find the subject of intent somewhat amusing as it is portrayed in this discussion...

Early on i responded with something liike this regarding this whole FF debate (and iirc specifically the Elfcrusher thing)

"Changing to add chance of failure and risk to a spell that is IMX most often used to try and save PCs and allies is not a direction i would be taking for a spell used so rarely and with really no significant game imbalancing in play history."

Now some may take that as claiming the intent of the Gm was to screw over their players and such, but in fact it is describing how i feel and what i feel the impact of the ruling to be - that as i see it such a ruling will more often be a negative to the players and their characters due to the stakes involved and the frequency of PCs using it vs NPCs using it.

No need to divine the intent of the Gm there... just stating the obvious consequences and how they help me decide to not go this way myself. ...as i see it.

it should be obvious that the result of nerfing a spell that is more often used to save PC/allies from a killer situation is going to impact them more and not in good ways.

i even noted several times that if the campaign saw FF used more often by NPCs this would not be a valid concern.

So, to be clear... a decision or ruling can be player hostile without it being an example of bad faith or pyschic reading the intent - because anti-player can mean going to hurt them worse as a matter of results not intent.

of course, its always funny to see NO WAY TO FATHOM THE GMs INTENT type worries or challenges to validity of positions especially when so often we see positions supported or taken (and often not challenged with the same "you cannot know") that are made based off a perception of something like , oh, i don't know, lets say...

"I don't think this is nerfing the spell at all. If you use the spell as I believe it was intended then you can still use it at the moment of falling with no additional rolls."

I am of course fairly convinced the implied "intended by whom" was supposed to be the designers. maybe not. maybe they meant "intended by my momma and my pet dog spot" and so they have an easy way to know what was the intent.

 

[Guest 6801328]

i notice you actually cut out the prince casting his own feather fall when he emerges from the darkness - was that an oversight or a deliberate exclusion to show its not possible or a deliberate exclusion to avoid an answer you don not want to give?

Deliberate exclusion. I was listing the things I would permit.

However, if it was Darkness and Silence, then I would let him cast it when he left the Silence.

In other words, the spell is designed to let you react to falling by letting you fall slowly. As long as you do it as soon as you are able, and not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working.

Oh, and regarding the "splat" rule: as I suggested earlier, I do agree upon further reflection that death is maybe too harsh a penalty. I think I would prefer an option where failing the acrobatics check results in a penalty that isn't death. Maybe stunned for a round, and starting the subsequent round prone.

Or something to that effect.