Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7313357" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Re the bolded parts where you seem detemined to play the victim...As i explained in the sections before and the place where you separate the statement from its explanation in my most recent reply - the decision is anti-player in that1 - in the case in question it can only hurt the player making the leap who is a PC.2 - in the case of games i have experienced FF is most often used by PCs in attempts to save them or their allies much more often than it is used by NPCs so adding a new mechanical means to shut it down is going to shift it to be more likely to fail.3 - for games in which the ratios in 2 are reversed the ruling would be reversed in its result... acknowledged several times.Also, the first response where i think you keep referring to "thwart[ing]" was this "I myself would not be inclined to on the spot invent new rule/mechanics to an otherwise OK spell to thwart such an attempt." and you were not mentioned at all or even quoted in the post. Here in the part where you went off again i referred to the "As for the anti-player nature of the decision, well it seems obvious if you pay attention to what i have said." and went on to illustrate how the results would adversely affect PCs more than NPCs.You seem to be attempting to portray these comments as personal attacks on yourself. You seem to want to take them as attacks on your intent. The former did not state that you were using that as your intent and did not mention you at all. The second references in the parts that follow how the results will trend against the players in the example and in my campaigns and even that it could reverse in other campaigns.I will admit, it is good that you have now seen the light and have shifted away from using carrying capacity (as you originally stated - 120lb for your str 8) to using the push/drag/lift amounts (as you note now 240 lb) because that new take definitely is less often to lead to tragic results for PCs.As for this..."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." Nope. no ruling to **feather fall** at all. Sorry. To be clear. a character [having the weight of an airship dropped on them will die] if they are vulnerable to the damage and it is sufficient to kill them... if using feather fall or not...  if using fly or not...if using bless or not... etc etc etcsimilarly you can fill in the [having an airship dropped on them will die] with "hit by a fireball" or "struck by a club" or "shot by arrows" or any other source of death dealing significance.i simply decided to make no exception for feather fall.If that is what you call a ruling, then hey, there is little i can do about that. as for your explict claim about my posaition and insta-pulp and now your what about ceiling etc etc etc"I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."That was what i said in response to your airship question when you first posed it. not the "whatever problems" not "insta-pulped".If the airship has weak ceilings or a fall rate that does not make it appropriate to crushing the character, that is a different case and regardless - its not about feather fall.Yout tact seems to have been a consistent approach to attacking my position - come up with elements not readily defined in the rules about weights and then pretend its about feather fall and being vague. But you are right on one thing - if one were using airships one should know the answers to their construction, fall rates, ceiling strengths and so forth before making a ruling on how they affect interaction with a slow or non-falling character. (Again, not an issue for feather fall.)As for this..."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"The answer was actually... ""I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."" That answer would apply in each of those cases... just replace "airship" with the appropriate vessel.again, stated simply, make no change to how the actions would normally interact.Do you have a point other than a notion that "weight damage from being under too heavy objects" is perhaps not as defined as you would like in the rules? HINT: Changing feather fall will not help ""weight damage from being under too heavy objects"  become clearer one bit. it just changes feather fall in a way that will allow a fairly mechanical counter-option to a spell that is more often than not used as a lifesaver for players' character IMX) So, no real gain in clarity of weights and crushing but a definite hit to the spell. Sorry, but this is well beyond pointless.</blockquote>

Verification