Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy E Grenemyer" data-source="post: 939228" data-attributes="member: 12388">Wow, I sense an argument.  Let's start by evaluating the premises.The first part:Not really an argument.  There are elements that could be turned into premises, though.  (That speed is reduced from 90’ to 60’ while wearing medium armor is true.  That carrying as opposed to wearing armor alleviates one from this movement restriction –assuming maximum encumbrance has not been reached as a result- is also true.)  Obviously we are meant to conclude that a distinction exists between “wearing” armor and “carrying” armor.  Note that “I” or “we” are under no obligation to account for this distinction.  If it matters to the argument, it’s up to the author to make it clear why we should consider it.First premise:  What kind of movement?  Base speed, range of motion, both, neither?  How does it restrict movement?  Is it because of the shear weight of armor, or is it because of the armor limiting range of motion?  And if “armor” restricts movement (as you say), then why don’t light armors impose a movement penalty?The PHB indicates that ”Medium and Heavy armor slows you down.”(See page 105, under the heading Speed.)  However, it doesn’t give a word of text explaining why.Were you trying to say, “Medium and Heavy Armor slows you down because it reduces your Speed”?  Or something else?Second premise: This statement is partially true.  Someone under the effects of the Fly spell is slowed down if they wear Medium or heavier armor (according to the spell description for Fly).  Wearing Light armor will not reduce the movement speed granted by the Fly spell. I’m sorry, the conclusion does not follow.  The first premise is unsupported by the PHB, and is hampered by not adequately explaining why armor limits movement, and what kinds of movement are restricted.  The second premise is true (when corrected for wording) but fails to support the conclusion because it relies on the -faulty- first premise to qualify it.Further, nothing in the argument refutes what is written in the spell description of Fly found in the PHB, which clearly states that “using” the Fly spell requires the recipient to spend just as much effort concentrating as he or she would spend while walking.  IMO, the argument should have started with the notion that “movement” of some kind is required to use the Fly spell, and then gone on to define what “movement” means in this context before building arguments that support the notion.</blockquote>

Verification