Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2361442" data-attributes="member: 31734">So, then we agree in concept.&nbsp; The problem is that you are trying to create additional consequences that do not correspond to the effects of the spell.&nbsp;&nbsp;Easy, you 'push' him.&nbsp; You can use your shield, a chair in hand, your shoulder, your head, your knee, whatever.&nbsp; The choice (i.e. flavor) of how you push someone has no relevance at all on the roll or how to adjudicate it.&nbsp; For instance, you should not gain an advantage for bull rushing someone with your shield vs. bull rushing someone with your hands unless the rules specifically identify the advantage.&nbsp;&nbsp;Maintaining forceful contact is by no means grappling.&nbsp; Grabbing is not even grappling.&nbsp; Succeeding at an opposed grapple check (i.e. holding) is grappling.&nbsp;Here's another example, however.&nbsp; Let's say I make an unarmed attack against someone with FoM and assume he misses the AoO.&nbsp; By your interpretation, I have to be very careful about how I describe my unarmed attack.&nbsp; If I say, &quot;I punch him&quot; I'm okay.&nbsp; If I say &quot;I kick him&quot; I'm okay.&nbsp; However, if I say &quot;I grab a wad of hair on the back of his head and pull his face down to meet my knee&quot; I'm suddenly punished.&nbsp; That's a case where you should not punish flavor text.&nbsp; An unarmed attack is merely an unarmed attack and FoM does not protect against it.&nbsp;&nbsp;Grab and entangle?&nbsp; Certainly not supported in the rules.&nbsp; Entangled is a well-defined condition.&nbsp; You are most certainly not entangled as a result of being tripped.&nbsp; Whether you call it 'entangled' at the instant of tripping is irrelevant.&nbsp; You can describe it however you wish and you should not be punished for using certain words for flavor.&nbsp;QUOTE=VorpalStare]OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.</blockquote>We are talking about the same thing because when you say that bull rushing and tripping are the same thing as grappling, you are wrong on every possible correlation of those special attacks.&nbsp;On opposed rolls: They are not even the same opposed rolls and different abilities and external modifiers apply.&nbsp;On game balance: I agree game balance is always a factor and allowing FoM to counteract all of these special attacks breaks it (overpowering an already powerful spell).&nbsp;On game effects: I don't know what you mean.&nbsp; Game rules?&nbsp; If so, your reasoning should have everything to do with it.&nbsp;On RP: But you do!&nbsp; You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2361442, member: 31734"] So, then we agree in concept. The problem is that you are trying to create additional consequences that do not correspond to the effects of the spell. Easy, you 'push' him. You can use your shield, a chair in hand, your shoulder, your head, your knee, whatever. The choice (i.e. flavor) of how you push someone has no relevance at all on the roll or how to adjudicate it. For instance, you should not gain an advantage for bull rushing someone with your shield vs. bull rushing someone with your hands unless the rules specifically identify the advantage. Maintaining forceful contact is by no means grappling. Grabbing is not even grappling. Succeeding at an opposed grapple check (i.e. holding) is grappling. Here's another example, however. Let's say I make an unarmed attack against someone with FoM and assume he misses the AoO. By your interpretation, I have to be very careful about how I describe my unarmed attack. If I say, "I punch him" I'm okay. If I say "I kick him" I'm okay. However, if I say "I grab a wad of hair on the back of his head and pull his face down to meet my knee" I'm suddenly punished. That's a case where you should not punish flavor text. An unarmed attack is merely an unarmed attack and FoM does not protect against it. Grab and entangle? Certainly not supported in the rules. Entangled is a well-defined condition. You are most certainly not entangled as a result of being tripped. Whether you call it 'entangled' at the instant of tripping is irrelevant. You can describe it however you wish and you should not be punished for using certain words for flavor. QUOTE=VorpalStare]OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.[/QUOTE] We are talking about the same thing because when you say that bull rushing and tripping are the same thing as grappling, you are wrong on every possible correlation of those special attacks. On opposed rolls: They are not even the same opposed rolls and different abilities and external modifiers apply. On game balance: I agree game balance is always a factor and allowing FoM to counteract all of these special attacks breaks it (overpowering an already powerful spell). On game effects: I don't know what you mean. Game rules? If so, your reasoning should have everything to do with it. On RP: But you do! You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions. [/QUOTE]

Verification