Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7313179" data-attributes="member: 6919838">The added case of the arrows was to show that as stated it was not the weight but the change in character status that ends the spell.You are equating an indirect cause to a direct cause.magic missles can kill someone and their fly spell to end. that is not the same as saying that magic missile shuts down the spell or their is a limit on magic missles that a flier can take. That is not a semantic difference.if the feather fall character had invulnerability so they could not take damage, then the feather fall would stay in effect and they would take no damage from having the airship - because they interact with the airship as they normally would (no damage from the weight/impact due to invulnerability.)As for each of your cases, the answer is the same - the character continues to fall at 60' (unless the spell is ended by some function) and they suffer whatever effects of the chain weight would normally be if they were not moved (or moved slowly. if you want an in-game analog - assume the creature is in a force cage with chains running to the weights but no way for the body to be pulled through the bars or any other immobile effect working on them.feather fall sets their descent rate to 60. that is all it does. if the results of those "jerked by weights" other than movement downward is not clear within the rules as far as say "damage taken" that is not an element related to this spell. feather fall does not alter any interaction except for downward movement restrictions.(It feels like you are not using weight per se to challenge the issue but that there maybe be vague areas in the rules regarding weights and such as far as anything but carrying. That may or may not be true. I am not going to do some rules delve on weights and crushing damage to deal with the issue here in the forum since it applies no matter what.)net result is i would do it differently because there is no gain from adding a weight limit tied to strength as far as i see it. the spell does not become more clear (or unclear) and does not see enough play in which it has shown itself to be OP that it makes sense to apply an obvious nerf. But if it helps your game, great. As for ruling vs rules, you are as anyone else allowed to change any thing in the rules you want. By RAW (to whatever degree that matters) there is no weight limit and adding such would be a house rule (to whatever degree that matters.) Sure, there is no statement within the spell that it is not countered by added weight above such and such weight but there is also no rule within the spell that it is not countered by being hit by a flaming orb - so either would be a Gm house rule (to whatever degree that matters.)But, for any given table, that may not matter.I, myself, am no great advocate for following the RAW if your game is served better by a house rule.this is just not a case where i would go that route. Even if i did see feather fall in need of additional restrictions - i would use the caster specs (someone observed using thei casting stat. not strength) or a target count sort of metric, because your own muscle has nothing to do with how many folks can hang on to you or how many chains can be lashed to you.Why you have this apparent desire to twist the cases cited into a weight limit for my RAW approach is beyond me. Not sure if its just trolling or what.But hey, whatever.</blockquote>

Verification