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: 7315194" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Actually i read it and see "which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls" and see no reference to only when they start to fall at all... if that spell said what you read ""when you or somebody starts to fall" i would not allow any option to cast it along the way, justv at the start of a fall. Your chance to react is passed.For example, i would not allow an AO for "leaves you reach" to be decided later in the turn after you see what they were doing later. You would have to make that decision when the reaction was enabled. So, pretty sure that your "roll for splat" is a pretty clear sign you are not reading that spell reaction the way you just claimed or you may be  using reactions quite inconsistently as far as timing goes - which was pretty much the point of the questions.As an example of what i am talking about.melee combat between orc and dwarforc decides to move back (not disengage)ME: the orc is backing off, do you want to use your Ao now assume no.ME: orc drops 15' back to ally and gets ready cure cast on them, thenm moves back to melee range and swings again.Dwarf player: i want to use that Ao now.ME: Sotry that was only allowed to react to him leaving your area and that monent has passed.Dwarf player: so can i make an acrobatics roll to get it now even though the moment has passed?ME: nope. But you should look into reach weapons and feats later on if you want t...Similarly, if the spell had said "when you or somebody starts to fall" then at my table there would be no "as they plummet past my corridor" or acrobatics check.but again, you can choose to run it how you want at your tables as long as your players consent. i would hope for my games that such a consequential and imaginative reading would have been made clear to them well before the issue became one of potential life and death.That gets to one of the core items i have for "rulings" vs "rules". i am very disinclined to give on the fly "rulings" that significantly hinder survival chances, that change things away from the seemingly obvious to the more selective in a way that hurts the PCs more than it hurts the NPCs. You may recall my frequent mentions of that being a key element. To me those things, those changes should be cases of well inf0ormed and prior consent less than they are likely to be on the fly seat of the pants...Again... "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no" and to me there is no compelling reason to say no to this in a ruling - quite the opposite in fact - several compelling reasons to say yes.But hey, not my table so... have a great Friday... ooops... no its Sunday... really it is. You can trust me.</blockquote>

Verification