Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7315819" data-attributes="member: 6919838">SatyrnRegarding your recent series about no RAW, no two case alike etc...I do not think anybody has argued that Elfcrusher cannot adopt any house rules in his game for whatever reason they are desired by he and his players and the consent of those involved.What has been a pretty serious disagreement over particulars has been the attempt to repeatedly portray his FALLS not FALLING ruling as valid within RAW or more specifically the actual INTENT of the designers. Now, as it turns out, apparently its not about what the trigger says or the intent of the trigger FALL vs FALLING but is about how the player is trying to use their ability to choose when to use their reaction. Which would seem to mean a lot of Elfcrusher claims about FALLS vs FALLINg and intent of the trigger are not exactly relevant anymore.As for the &quot;trap&quot; it was a very simple case - i find it wonderfully telling that a specific example of using a ruling is seemingly so dangerous that it cannot be addressed without branding it as a trap.It seems obvious that if one believes the trigger is the start of f all and not the ongoing act of falling that not being able to cast due to not seeing/perceiving/aware of a reaction to &quot;start of the fall&quot; and only coming in after that has passed but the &quot;falling ongoing&quot; stage is reached is a direct and logical consequence of that decision to treat trigger as &quot;start of fall and not falling&quot;. (which now seems to have been reversed?)There is no &quot;trap&quot; there except my bet is that most anybody who has seen feather fall used in games would have almost no belief that using FF to catch the drop out of darkness was somehow against the rules due to the trigger case.Its not a trap to show the obvious consequences of a ruling if it is applied consistently in cases that might be ecnountered. Its normally just called reasoning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7315819, member: 6919838"] Satyrn Regarding your recent series about no RAW, no two case alike etc... I do not think anybody has argued that Elfcrusher cannot adopt any house rules in his game for whatever reason they are desired by he and his players and the consent of those involved. What has been a pretty serious disagreement over particulars has been the attempt to repeatedly portray his FALLS not FALLING ruling as valid within RAW or more specifically the actual INTENT of the designers. Now, as it turns out, apparently its not about what the trigger says or the intent of the trigger FALL vs FALLING but is about how the player is trying to use their ability to choose when to use their reaction. Which would seem to mean a lot of Elfcrusher claims about FALLS vs FALLINg and intent of the trigger are not exactly relevant anymore. As for the "trap" it was a very simple case - i find it wonderfully telling that a specific example of using a ruling is seemingly so dangerous that it cannot be addressed without branding it as a trap. It seems obvious that if one believes the trigger is the start of f all and not the ongoing act of falling that not being able to cast due to not seeing/perceiving/aware of a reaction to "start of the fall" and only coming in after that has passed but the "falling ongoing" stage is reached is a direct and logical consequence of that decision to treat trigger as "start of fall and not falling". (which now seems to have been reversed?) There is no "trap" there except my bet is that most anybody who has seen feather fall used in games would have almost no belief that using FF to catch the drop out of darkness was somehow against the rules due to the trigger case. Its not a trap to show the obvious consequences of a ruling if it is applied consistently in cases that might be ecnountered. Its normally just called reasoning. [/QUOTE]

Verification