Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 285452" data-attributes="member: 876">This may in fact be the most tortured interpretation of a D&amp;D rule I've ever seen. The phrase &quot;solid and diametrically opposed points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc.&quot; clearly gives the parameters of what's acceptable, and candles/pebbles do not fit that model.Furthermore, the wording and examples are almost entirely unchanged from the way they've been written by the original designer since the earliest 1st Ed. AD&amp;D materials: &quot;These masses must be anchored to two or more points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc. -- diametrically opposed.&quot; (1st Ed. PH p. 72). That same designer further writes: &quot;If this spell is cast without two firm anchoring places, the webs collapse and entangle themselves, effectively negating the spell&quot; (1st Ed. DMG, p. 45).- There's no way that a candle/pebble/blade of grass counts as a &quot;firm anchoring place&quot; in normal parlance.- There's no way that the 3rd Ed. designers meant to radically revise this requirement and yet use the exact same words and examples.- There's no way that any of the designers, least of all Skip &quot;the Sage&quot;, would agree that tiny unattached objects satisfy this requirement. - The criticism of using &quot;real world physics&quot; is most legitimately levelled at the person interpreting the words &quot;point&quot; and &quot;solid&quot; in their most technical, modern-science definitions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dcollins, post: 285452, member: 876"] This may in fact be the most tortured interpretation of a D&D rule I've ever seen. The phrase "solid and diametrically opposed points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc." clearly gives the parameters of what's acceptable, and candles/pebbles do not fit that model. Furthermore, the wording and examples are almost entirely unchanged from the way they've been written by the original designer since the earliest 1st Ed. AD&D materials: "These masses must be anchored to two or more points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc. -- diametrically opposed." (1st Ed. PH p. 72). That same designer further writes: "If this spell is cast without two firm anchoring places, the webs collapse and entangle themselves, effectively negating the spell" (1st Ed. DMG, p. 45). - There's no way that a candle/pebble/blade of grass counts as a "firm anchoring place" in normal parlance. - There's no way that the 3rd Ed. designers meant to radically revise this requirement and yet use the exact same words and examples. - There's no way that any of the designers, least of all Skip "the Sage", would agree that tiny unattached objects satisfy this requirement. - The criticism of using "real world physics" is most legitimately levelled at the person interpreting the words "point" and "solid" in their most technical, modern-science definitions. [/QUOTE]

Verification