Hold Person vs Boots of Flying

[Hypersmurf]

Agreed

Hey, look! Bauglir agrees!

That's great, man.

I always said he was agreeable.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh geez you guys

I disagree.

The text of Held says you can't move.

The way Fly works is that as part of a Standard Action, you can move your (Fly) speed.

Since you can't move while Held, Fly doesn't work.

Teleportation is not "moving" in the "What type of action?" sense of the word.

Neither is Telekinesis or Levitation.

-Hyp.

Ethereal: you move at will. This covers the "move" portion of a standard action yet is obviously a purely mental action.

Why can't the fly spell be understood in the same way? I see no reason a person who is tied and gaged could not use the fly spell previously cast on them to move. No arms, no legs, no problem! A quadriplegic could use the fly spell, even if their head was pinned in place and their jaw wired shut.

Hold person has always been paralysis, not some phobia of moving or some such. Since I see paralysis as not being something that stops use the fly spell, hold person will not either.

I agree with you there. Levitate and Telekinesis are applying an external force - even if it's you controlling them, it's the same as having Bob the Fighter pick you up and carry you.

NO! We can't agree, it would break the streak!

 

[Bauglir]

2 more posts in the time it took to reach for submit reply. Blimey

I should probably reiterate:

Anyway it's 4:30AM where I am. I'll pick this up in the morning (or 'the afternoon' as the hip kids call it these days)

 

[LokiDR]

Hey, look! Bauglir agrees!
That's great, man.
I always said he was agreeable.

-Hyp.

Hey, he posted that right after I posted, that means he agrees with me, right?

2 more posts in the time it took to reach for submit reply. Blimey

I should probably reiterate:

Anyway it's 4:30AM where I am. I'll pick this up in the morning (or 'the afternoon' as the hip kids call it these days)

Bauglir, you traitor!

I will stand by magical movement is not prevented by Hold Person.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What dead debate? Their aint no dead debates here!

PH, pg 141 "If you are wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from weight) for each catagory [of encumbrance]. Do not stack the penalties."

Sounds like it is all encumbrance, just different sorces.

Same page :

"Encumbrance comes in two parts: encumbrance dy armor and encumbrance by total weight."

My statement that you objected to earlier was "There are two types of encumbrance; encumbrance due to armor and encumbrance due to weight. Throughout the post, I was referring to encumbrance due to armor."

For quoting from memory, I came pretty close... I still don't understand your objection?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I'm happy that we're happy

I'd just like to say how great it is to be on a message board where people can disagree (strongly, even) and not resort to flames and personal attacks.

Has this board always been like this? Ifso, I wish I would have come here a long time ago!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: I'm happy that we're happy

I'd just like to say how great it is to be on a message board where people can disagree (strongly, even) and not resort to flames and personal attacks.

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect a loser like you to say.

Jeez.

... no! No! Not the Bore Worms!

Aieeeee...!

[fizzle]

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What dead debate? Their aint no dead debates here!

Same page :

"Encumbrance comes in two parts: encumbrance dy armor and encumbrance by total weight."

My statement that you objected to earlier was "There are two types of encumbrance; encumbrance due to armor and encumbrance due to weight. Throughout the post, I was referring to encumbrance due to armor."

For quoting from memory, I came pretty close... I still don't understand your objection?

-Hyp.

I see that line now. But that does not say that there are two KINDS of encumbrance, but that there are two different PARTS to encumbrance. Armor is only part of the whole encumbrance. Any time you talk about encumbrance, you are by definition talking about all parts of the encumbrance.

Does that clearify my position?

 

[LokiDR]

Re: I'm happy that we're happy

I'd just like to say how great it is to be on a message board where people can disagree (strongly, even) and not resort to flames and personal attacks.

Has this board always been like this? Ifso, I wish I would have come here a long time ago!

It isn't always this nice. Some arguements have gotten personal. But at the end of the day it is only a game and not worth that much trouble.

PS. How dare you insult my mother! Your father smelt of elderberrys!

- Loki "I disagree with Hypersmurf" DR

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What dead debate? Their aint no dead debates here!

I see that line now. But that does not say that there are two KINDS of encumbrance, but that there are two different PARTS to encumbrance. Armor is only part of the whole encumbrance. Any time you talk about encumbrance, you are by definition talking about all parts of the encumbrance.

But they're non-stackable. They function independently of each other.

-Hyp.