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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7313318" data-attributes="member: 16814">Exhibiting a behavior of insinuating or outright calling into question my motives in multiple threads is really on you.  Mentioning it is, as you note, on me, but that fact doesn't obviate the behavior.The death was caused by what, again?  Oh, yes, it was casting feather fall with too much weight carried.  You keep moving back to the ending of the feather fall effect despite my multiple, clear statements that this isn't the crux of my statements.  You apply a ruling to feather fall when too much weight is applied to the target creature:  if it exceeds some arbitrary and still unstated threshold, the creature will die due to the weight.  I've challenged you multiple times to expound upon this ruling, and it's clearly a ruling that interacts with both feather fall and weight, and you keep trying to obfuscate by introducing arrows, death by drowning, fly spells, and dead people not being able to be targeted by feather fall, all of which are completely orthogonal to the questions I've raised.Again, you really want to institute rulings when their ones you agree with, and yet you still wish to disparage those you disagree with.  And the proof of that is this next statement:Thank you for the clear statement that you've decided my intentions are to punish players for nefarious reasons.  Right, you said that my choice was "thwart[ing]" player tactics, but now hold out (and you didn't do this until responding to a different poster and that recently) that you could acknowledge that it wasn't an anti-player decision if enemies use it, too.  But, no, your initial reaction to my ruling was that it was anti-player, and your continued response is that it's anti-player.And, yet, when I applied the same ruling to the character using feather fall to try to keep a falling airship from plummeting, my response was just that it didn't work.  You kill the character.  And, yet, my rulings are "anti-player".Pro-tip:  don't assume rulings are anti-player.  That's probably hard for you because (and I'm bringing in other threads again) it's a common response from you to play styles you don't use.How does casting feather fall in a cabin of a falling airship usually work, then?  You say it results in the immediate pulpification and death of the character, and yet we haven't determined the strength of the ceiling, the time the airship has been falling, speed at which it's falling, or any of the other physical issues that might affect a consideration of the damage one would assume falling at a different speed might cause.  This is even without the consideration of the unique physics of D&D, where the airship will fall 500 ft a round (XGtE) and not what it would really fall (closer to 600ft in the first 6 seconds, almost 1800 feet in the next 6 seconds).  So, please, tell us all how it normally works, here.Nope.  That's a strawman.  You can even fire arrows at it, if you'd like, with that bow.  But, when you decide it's time for a ruling that kill characters that unadvisedly cast feather fall, you bet it's a big enough deal that you might get questioned on it.Yes, you've been very clear that you think I'm ruling expressly to thwart clever player tactics and am doing so from an anti-player perspective.Okay, let's say the character is under a falling kayak when they cast feather fall.  Dead?What if they/'re under a falling rowboat?  Dead?What if they're under a falling dinghy?  Dead?What about a falling torpedo boat?  Dead?We know that when their under a falling schooner the answer is dead.Where is the magic line of flying ship size where the casting of feather fall equates to death?  And, could that ruling of death have anything to do with the weight of the falling ship?  Of course, the answer that that rhetorical answer is:clearly.  You stated as much when you declared the character dead from having the falling airship smush them to a pulp.  So, yes, you continued evasions that you do make a ruling about feather fall based on weight ring extra-ordinarily hollow as they clearly do.  Further, the fact that you're willing to arbitrarily kill characters based on this weight, thus thwarting their clever tactics to halt the crashing of their airships shows that you're just fine with such rulings, so long as they comport themselves to your opinions instead of other people's.</blockquote>

Verification