Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lkwpeter" data-source="post: 7252953" data-attributes="member: 6804713">I already said, this is a personal summary from this discussion. It's not meant to be a scientific work. So, you won't find much quotation. And you won't find evidence. It wasn't actually my intention to tell anybody how to rule it. I tried my best to summarize it and it was somehow a &quot;service&quot; for others to share it. So, what's your point? Take it our leave. it..You took his words. I took the same. You tell me not to interpret them. A few sentences later you start your sentence with &quot;To me, it appears he means that...&quot;.Where within the spell description have you found that the target is convinced no to be able to do something? It is only convinced to see an illusion. Full stop. And yes, there might even be some psychic damage (e.g. if you make the chains burning). But nowhere in the description it is written that the target is forced to do something. The target is not convinced that it can't move. It is just convinced that it sees chains (the illusion). If it moves, the chains will either move with the target or the target will pass through them (if the chains are fixed on a certain spot). The target will then reationalize that it got free in some way.But to be honest, I don't want to discuss that again. We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that.Same answer: We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that.Side note: I don't want to argue. This spell is a difficult one. Again, I don't claim this to be the truth. It was just meant to be a &quot;service&quot; for people that don't want to read the whole thread. But if you are interested in a further discussion of this spell than I suggest you do read the whole thread, so we have some kind of &quot;anchor&quot;. Otherwise it's just discussing the same points all over again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lkwpeter, post: 7252953, member: 6804713"] I already said, this is a personal summary from this discussion. It's not meant to be a scientific work. So, you won't find much quotation. And you won't find evidence. It wasn't actually my intention to tell anybody how to rule it. I tried my best to summarize it and it was somehow a "service" for others to share it. So, what's your point? Take it our leave. it.. You took his words. I took the same. You tell me not to interpret them. A few sentences later you start your sentence with "To me, it appears he means that...". Where within the spell description have you found that the target is convinced no to be able to do something? It is only convinced to see an illusion. Full stop. And yes, there might even be some psychic damage (e.g. if you make the chains burning). But nowhere in the description it is written that the target is forced to do something. The target is not convinced that it can't move. It is just convinced that it sees chains (the illusion). If it moves, the chains will either move with the target or the target will pass through them (if the chains are fixed on a certain spot). The target will then reationalize that it got free in some way. But to be honest, I don't want to discuss that again. We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that. Same answer: We already did that. Please read the thread and afterwards take your own conclusions. I am absolutely fine with that. Side note: I don't want to argue. This spell is a difficult one. Again, I don't claim this to be the truth. It was just meant to be a "service" for people that don't want to read the whole thread. But if you are interested in a further discussion of this spell than I suggest you do read the whole thread, so we have some kind of "anchor". Otherwise it's just discussing the same points all over again. [/QUOTE]

Verification