Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8034378" data-attributes="member: 1465">It's easy if you try.I am thinking that I would rule it that way because it amuses me. And I think &quot;it's magic&quot; in this case does cut it, since we're literally talking about how a magic item that challenges the laws of physics works on the inside. I don't think most players would need more consistency other than just being told how it works, or have their PCs figuring it out by some experimentation. In fact, I am quite sure that you wouldn't need more consistency if we were actually playing the game at the table, you would just play along with it, and maybe the unexpected possibilities would amuse you too*. So why aren't you playing along or simply ignoring my idea? What bothers you so much about my different ruling? It's not like I am trying to tell others they should rule it the same way.*although, speaking of that specific example, I think I would rule that popping over someone's head or partially inserting something does nothing special, it needs to be wholly inside, and throwing someone into a bag of holding to suffocate seems possible and powerful with either ruling, unless we want to start another discussion on whether it is more &quot;logically consistent&quot; that they can or cannot climb out of the bag on their own (hint: I would rule they cannot!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 8034378, member: 1465"] It's easy if you try. I am thinking that I would rule it that way because it amuses me. And I think "it's magic" in this case [I]does[/I] cut it, since we're literally talking about how a magic item that challenges the laws of physics works on the inside. I don't think most players would need more consistency other than just being told how it works, or have their PCs figuring it out by some experimentation. In fact, I am quite sure that [I]you[/I] wouldn't need more consistency if we were actually playing the game at the table, you would just play along with it, and maybe the unexpected possibilities would amuse you too*. So why aren't you playing along or simply ignoring my idea? What bothers you so much about my different ruling? It's not like I am trying to tell others they should rule it the same way. *although, speaking of that specific example, I think I would rule that popping over someone's head or partially inserting something does nothing special, it needs to be wholly inside, and throwing someone into a bag of holding to suffocate seems possible and powerful with either ruling, unless we want to start another discussion on whether it is more "logically consistent" that they can or cannot climb out of the bag on their own (hint: I would rule they cannot!) [/QUOTE]

Verification