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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 3658106" data-attributes="member: 12332">Well there's logical extensions and then there aren't.  As above, air and water are functionally rather similar when working out resistances placed on other bodies.  It seems, to me, obvious that the section about moving and attacking in water is a call-out to demonstrate what is a common occurance and a common argument at the game table.I.E. that the designers intended for the statement about impediments to movement and attacking normally to include water, but that in practice or in testing many individuals argued about that, or that they felt there would be arguments, so they chose to call it out specifically ... but not that the call-out was exclusionary (I.E. the freedom INCLUDES freedom in water, but is not limited TO freedom in water).  There are all sorts of small logics and non-extensions where we don't have to enter the realm of question begged absurdity.  Not that I'm accusing you of such, but just that I don't believe everything has to be called out in a list in a spell description to keep people from going mad.  I.E. Unless someone is trying to be a PITA, they are not going to say that FoM should allow them to walk through walls, fly, etc.  And if somebody is oft given to being a PITA in those regards, I generally choose not to play with them.Saves time.  <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />--fje</blockquote>

Verification