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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Foxworthy" data-source="post: 4840272" data-attributes="member: 80704">I don't know what definition of amiss your using but the one I'm using means wrongly/incorrect.So when they fail the check they believe they were wrong about it being an illusion. They believe it to not be an illusion.That's why it's a disbelief check, to see if the character believes the illusion is real or if it's an illusion.When they fail to disbelief, that means they believe.First off as far as I can tell the spell you mentioned doesn't exist, so as far as I know by RAW that situation could never happen. It seems like nothing more than a strawman to try and punch holes in the game rules.Well, if you stretch anything in the game that far than your going to have problems.And nothing amiss is not broad when contain under the subtext of checking whether or not someone believes something.The check is to see if a character disbelieves, you can ignore that if you want and just rule that the character disbelieves if the player disbelieve but why even bother rolling a saving throw if you aren't going to accept the results of a failure?DnD is a roleplaying game, if you don't want to play the role that's fine but don't bitch at the game mechanics because they support someone playing a role seperate from the player themselves.Personally I don't think following the role of someone disbeliving is dicating actions, I was using the term that the poster used. Saying someone can't cast dispell magic to find an illusion that the character doesn't think is there isn't dicating actions. Just like tellign a character he can't fly without an item or spell that provides it isn't dicatating actions.But I dare you to find one piece of RAW that says controlling a player is limited to effects with the Mind Affecting descriptor.Because most descriptors have no game effect on their own. I've seen no evidence that Mind Affecting has a game effect that limits it to being the only thing that can 'dicate" actions.Mind Affecting is just a descriptor, nothing more. It has no determination on what effects a spell can have.You made up a spell to be simple? And then you use a made up spell to try and prove a flaw in the game rules to be simple?Sure.The players will believe the wall is real because they failed the saving throw. Next time the GM should not make up a spell and put it ten times in a row in order to force the all PC's to fail the saving throw.That's not RAW that's being a bad DM. The objective wasn't simple it was set up to gurantee the players failed. The DM made up a spell and put up as many walls as he could to screw the players into failing.So no, your example is not RAW, but a vindictive DM trying to screw his players over.</blockquote>

Verification