Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2351425" data-attributes="member: 31734">Thanks, werk, your post was quite welcome and made me laugh out loud. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I especially like the 2005 in the first quote.  Believe me, I only wish I drove a year 2005 Infiniti.  Alas, maybe when my stock options are in the black -- well in the black. ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy).  You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW.  Did you mean to say that the laws of physics in our world don't apply in the standard D&D world?  I'd argue against that, too.  Like I said, you can create a world where that doesn't occur, and that's great, I have no problem with it, but by default that's not the case. I would not, however, apply advanced scientific concepts like glass is a fluid, integration by parts, or even thrust.  We agree on that, but the boundary is not as close to 'none' as you imply.  We also agree on trying to remove discussions of advanced science from discussions of the rules, and I never did that until (sorry werk) the friction comment.  Werk retracted that statement, so let's drop that part.  Now, we can just deal with the rules as written, and in the cases that an interpretation brings us to seemingly (forgive me) surrealness, consider the intent of the rule and not just the wording. Let's talk about flying underwater then.  Not considering FoM, do you agree that you cannot fly or burrow or walk underwater?  Consider the quote I provided.  Hopefully you do, because I can't imagine it being any clearer.  So, recognizing that there might be (at least) ambiguity in the spell FoM (based if nothing else on this thread), do you think that the intent of FoM is to allow creatures to fly underwater or walk on the ocean floor, dropping in 99% of the cases to their deaths?  Do you think the intent of the spell's enhanced underwater combat capabilities is to ensure that clerics will use the spell underwater only so that they will plummet hundreds, if not thousands, of feet to their deaths in the open sea? I'd hope you would say no.  The spell's intent seems obvious that it is beneficial.  This intent is obvious when you recognize that it is 'harmless'.  Interpreting the spell such that it becomes instantly deadly and yet strangely beneficial at the same time is really what I feel a poor interpretation. Re: hurricane, raging riverI agree that FoM would eliminate the movement penalties beyond what you could normally swim (e.g. 1/4 speed).  The best intrepretation of 'normal movement' to me is how you normally move in that environment.  By environment, and I'm not sure if that's the right word, but I refer to land, air, sea, ground, climbing.  Basically, the <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/naturalSpecialAbilities.htm#movementModes" target="_blank">movement modes</a>.  If you have a climb speed and something hinders your new climb speed, you overcome it with FoM.  You do not suddenly slip down any slope or rope.</blockquote>

Verification