D&D 5E Best Non-GWM, Non-SS, Non-PM, Non-CE Damagers

[FrogReaver]

"implying" is not the same as "saying"

Nah duh Sherlock. That's why I said it doesn't imply that

 

[Thateous]

It doesn't imply that at all. It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move not that they fall if they don't move.

If that is truly the case, then i misinterpreted it. The use of the word 'hover' paints the picture differently in my head.

Fuel for your fire, sir.

 

[FrogReaver]

I made a comment on your assumptions regarding the adventuring workday. Nothing more.

Yep and I asked a question out of curiosity if changing those assumptions to something in line with your experience changed who is considered the best. If u don't want to discuss that u ain't got to

 

[CapnZapp]

Nah duh Sherlock. That's why I said it doesn't imply that

You did say "It doesn't imply that at all."

But then you went ahead with "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move not that they fall if they don't move." to prove your point.

But here you write "It says". Expanded, your sentence becomes "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move [it doesn't say] that they fall if they don't move."

But he never claimed they said they fall if they don't move. He claimed it's implied.

Hence me differentiating between the two verbs

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

You did say "It doesn't imply that at all."

But then you went ahead with "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move not that they fall if they don't move." to prove your point.

But here you write "It says". Expanded, your sentence becomes "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move [it doesn't say] that they fall if they don't move."

But he never claimed they said they fall if they don't move. He claimed it's implied.

Hence me differentiating between the two verbs

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Pendant if much?

 

[FrogReaver]

If that is truly the case, then i misinterpreted it. The use of the word 'hover' paints the picture differently in my head.

Fuel for your fire, sir.

Thanks for the link. I agree it's not worded well in the PHB. I even understand how it gets read the way you did by so many.

It' just hover and magic flight are exceptions to the rule about depriving a creature of the ability to move causing it to fall. That's the point of mentioning hover on PHB 190. There's really no other implication that can be drawn. Just because movement depriving abilities can cause a creature without hover to fall doesn't imply that if the creature chooses to stay in the same spot that it will fall. That's such a major leap of logic it would be illogical to take that as the implication.

In realistic terms, think of abilities that deprive movement as interfering with a flying creatures ability to flap it's wings. This causes it to fall. This would imply that the hover ability should only apply to some non-winged method of flight that doesn't require some kind of physical mechanism to keep the flight active. I'm not familiar enough with the monster manual to say if this is the case but I imagine it's probably pretty close to how they applied hover to some creatures and not others.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pendant if much?

It seems to have had its intended effect.

You last reply (to Thateous, just above) is much improved in this regard, and I commend you for it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

You did say "It doesn't imply that at all."

But then you went ahead with "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move not that they fall if they don't move." to prove your point.

But here you write "It says". Expanded, your sentence becomes "It says that they fall if deprived of the ability to move [it doesn't say] that they fall if they don't move."

But he never claimed they said they fall if they don't move. He claimed it's implied.

Hence me differentiating between the two verbs

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Interesting. Booming Blade denies the target the ability to "willingly move" (if it does not want to take damage). It is therefore "otherwise deprived of the ability to move" (if it does not want to take damage). Flight doesn't care what deprived you of the ability to move.

Therefore it falls. That's not implied, that's what the rule states. The spell Fly does not grant Hover.

 

[CapnZapp]

Interesting. Booming Blade denies the target the ability to "willingly move" (if it does not want to take damage). It is therefore "otherwise deprived of the ability to move" (if it does not want to take damage). Flight doesn't care what deprived you of the ability to move.

Therefore it falls. That's not implied, that's what the rule states. The spell Fly does not grant Hover.

I can't see why you would quote me as if I said something you are commenting upon. I was not talking about either of those things.

But since you did bring me into this..

Without context, your conclusion is absurd. Why would a flyer choose to fall to its death instead of soaking a small bit of booming damage?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Thateous]

Except booming blade doesn't prevent anyone from moving... but let's get back on topic.

Does anyone feel like explaining to me how you guys come up with the damage per round calculations? What's assumed based on chance to hit, etc. Or just point me to a thread that already explains this.

Sent from my SM-G955U using EN World mobile app