Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2360883" data-attributes="member: 31734">It is true, unless you can find something that contradicts &quot;A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ...&quot;&nbsp; The incorporeal subtype description specifically gives an exception that those creatures can move through solid objects.&nbsp; This is the point, though, that it provides the exception.&nbsp; FoM does not.&nbsp;Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state.&nbsp; I'd agree that being submersed in quicksand, lava, or the like is sufficiently like being submersed in water to warrant that FoM works in those cases.&nbsp; Being bull rushed is nothing like that, nor is being overrun or tripped.&nbsp; Those special attacks are not even impeding movement.&nbsp; You can still stand up and continue moving or move from where you got bull rushed to.&nbsp; I'd only agree with you if bull rush said something like, &quot;Move your opponent and keep them there.&quot;&nbsp;Favoring the players is not a Good Thing.&nbsp; The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys.&nbsp;But, you don't need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip.&nbsp; You can do either while having your hands full.&nbsp; Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong.&nbsp; If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best.&nbsp;I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all.&nbsp; These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all.&nbsp; If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each.&nbsp; There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false.&nbsp;Yes, indeed!&nbsp; I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me.&nbsp; He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2360883, member: 31734"] It is true, unless you can find something that contradicts "A creature with a fly speed can move [u]through the air[/u] ..." The incorporeal subtype description specifically gives an exception that those creatures can move through solid objects. This is the point, though, that it provides the exception. FoM does not. Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state. I'd agree that being submersed in quicksand, lava, or the like is sufficiently like being submersed in water to warrant that FoM works in those cases. Being bull rushed is nothing like that, nor is being overrun or tripped. Those special attacks are not even impeding movement. You can still stand up and continue moving or move from where you got bull rushed to. I'd only agree with you if bull rush said something like, "Move your opponent [i]and keep them there[/i]." Favoring the players is not a Good Thing. The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys. But, you [b]don't[/b] need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip. You can do either while having your hands full. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong. If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best. I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all. These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all. If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each. There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false. Yes, indeed! I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me. He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification