Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feather Fall hanger on
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7315787" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Some various points to be responded to...</p><p></p><p><em>For the Nth time, we are both quoting the spell "as written" we are just interpreting "falls" differently. Unless you can provide additional evidence to why your interpretation is correct there's no point citing "as written".</em></p><p><em></em></p><p></p><p>Well, actually one of the things is not so much "correct" but "consistent." </p><p></p><p>If you view FALLS as a clear cut "starts to fall" and does not include "falling" (as in falls past") then there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in your approach with the RAW.</p><p></p><p>In RAw you do not get for any given reaction to redefine the trigger with a die roll. But you have stated you would allow for feather fall a chance to do the acrobatics thing to cast it at a later point in the fall effectively changing the trigger from FALLS (starts) to FALLS (falling) with a die roll acrobatics and a chance of splat. </p><p></p><p>Now maybe you consistently allow this across your game - make an acrobatics roll to change AO from "leaves your reach" to "enters you reach" maybe?</p><p></p><p>matter of fact, when you started out, the whole acrobatics thing was about whether or not you were trained enough to pick the precise spot, not whether the trigger condition was including falling or not at all. </p><p></p><p>Also we again come to context - in this case reading beyond the single sentence taken out of context. Within the spell it specifically allows targeting "falling" creatures. "Choose up to five falling creatures within range."</p><p></p><p>If you take falls and falling to be two separate things then the way that spell works becomes incredibly screwed up.</p><p></p><p>When you fall (not falling) you can cast it to help others who are falling but you are currently covered by falls not falling so you are not a valid target?</p><p></p><p>Once you start falling (lets says a long plummet, you can cast FF then but after that you cannot use FF on say subsequent turns to stop yourself unless you see someone else starting to fall because "falling" is not a valid trigger?</p><p></p><p>You dont see the start of a fall but then see someone falling and you cannot cast FF cuz falling is not the trigger since you cut that out of FALLS"</p><p></p><p>But, somehow, an acrobatic check can change that all here, unlike other reactions where you cannot just add a new trigger with a skill roll?</p><p></p><p>the decision to add in a restricition "FALLS does not inclue FALLING" creates a whole lot of inconsistency and conflicts with the context of the spell and its use and its history... and seems very much hinged on some perception about HALO</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Here (as I mentioned before) I think we have a different conception of what 'training' looks like. I picture nerds in robes reading books, practicing pronunciations, and getting lectured on the foolishness of adventuring. </em></p><p><em>To be trained to time a landing from a great height I picture something more like Dr. Xaviers, with wizards going into combat simulations and learning...well...acrobatics.</em></p><p></p><p>Well, see, when a character chooses to "know" a spell that allowing firing a bolt of fire as an attack roll, i assume they did spend time working with that spell learning how to cast it and so forth... not just sitting in a library. When someone chooses to learn a spell which gives a reaction to say give an attack aimed at them a disadvantage, i assume they learned about it and its timing in practice drills not just from reading a book in a library. Some way when someone learns a spell to save them from falling, i assume they learned bits of it from practice including falling. </p><p></p><p>i would note that it is YOUR decisions that acrobatics is involved that turns this from a physical test instead of an arcane or intelligent one. </p><p></p><p></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Not quite. It's "falls", not "falling". Small difference, but I think it leads to most of this debate.</em></p><p></p><p>To read falls and falling as discrete and separate elements in that spell is a choice that brings with it a whole lot of context garbage. FALLS can be read as "start of a fall only" instead of its more inclusive wording but only if one chooses to ignore the context provided by the rest of the spell. </p><p></p><p>You know, falls can also mean "a waterfall" so maybe there is a just as valid RAW ruling that only allows feather fall when the caster is a waterfall?</p><p></p><p>"move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level." Google dictionary falls - definition of fall. first response.</p><p></p><p>Just to be clear, do you have an actual cite which says from an objective source that falls means "starting to fall"?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7315787, member: 6919838"] Some various points to be responded to... [I]For the Nth time, we are both quoting the spell "as written" we are just interpreting "falls" differently. Unless you can provide additional evidence to why your interpretation is correct there's no point citing "as written". [/I] Well, actually one of the things is not so much "correct" but "consistent." If you view FALLS as a clear cut "starts to fall" and does not include "falling" (as in falls past") then there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in your approach with the RAW. In RAw you do not get for any given reaction to redefine the trigger with a die roll. But you have stated you would allow for feather fall a chance to do the acrobatics thing to cast it at a later point in the fall effectively changing the trigger from FALLS (starts) to FALLS (falling) with a die roll acrobatics and a chance of splat. Now maybe you consistently allow this across your game - make an acrobatics roll to change AO from "leaves your reach" to "enters you reach" maybe? matter of fact, when you started out, the whole acrobatics thing was about whether or not you were trained enough to pick the precise spot, not whether the trigger condition was including falling or not at all. Also we again come to context - in this case reading beyond the single sentence taken out of context. Within the spell it specifically allows targeting "falling" creatures. "Choose up to five falling creatures within range." If you take falls and falling to be two separate things then the way that spell works becomes incredibly screwed up. When you fall (not falling) you can cast it to help others who are falling but you are currently covered by falls not falling so you are not a valid target? Once you start falling (lets says a long plummet, you can cast FF then but after that you cannot use FF on say subsequent turns to stop yourself unless you see someone else starting to fall because "falling" is not a valid trigger? You dont see the start of a fall but then see someone falling and you cannot cast FF cuz falling is not the trigger since you cut that out of FALLS" But, somehow, an acrobatic check can change that all here, unlike other reactions where you cannot just add a new trigger with a skill roll? the decision to add in a restricition "FALLS does not inclue FALLING" creates a whole lot of inconsistency and conflicts with the context of the spell and its use and its history... and seems very much hinged on some perception about HALO [I]Here (as I mentioned before) I think we have a different conception of what 'training' looks like. I picture nerds in robes reading books, practicing pronunciations, and getting lectured on the foolishness of adventuring. To be trained to time a landing from a great height I picture something more like Dr. Xaviers, with wizards going into combat simulations and learning...well...acrobatics.[/I] Well, see, when a character chooses to "know" a spell that allowing firing a bolt of fire as an attack roll, i assume they did spend time working with that spell learning how to cast it and so forth... not just sitting in a library. When someone chooses to learn a spell which gives a reaction to say give an attack aimed at them a disadvantage, i assume they learned about it and its timing in practice drills not just from reading a book in a library. Some way when someone learns a spell to save them from falling, i assume they learned bits of it from practice including falling. i would note that it is YOUR decisions that acrobatics is involved that turns this from a physical test instead of an arcane or intelligent one. [I] Not quite. It's "falls", not "falling". Small difference, but I think it leads to most of this debate.[/I] To read falls and falling as discrete and separate elements in that spell is a choice that brings with it a whole lot of context garbage. FALLS can be read as "start of a fall only" instead of its more inclusive wording but only if one chooses to ignore the context provided by the rest of the spell. You know, falls can also mean "a waterfall" so maybe there is a just as valid RAW ruling that only allows feather fall when the caster is a waterfall? "move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level." Google dictionary falls - definition of fall. first response. Just to be clear, do you have an actual cite which says from an objective source that falls means "starting to fall"? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feather Fall hanger on
Top