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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sullivan" data-source="post: 1989285" data-attributes="member: 28152">Now this is really delving into Rules Lawyery, but the leading "Such as " implies a possibily incomplete list. So that is at best inconclusive (and thus poorly crafted). It simply cannot hold the weight of the section I mentioned that provides no such possible way out (save for error of forgetting about Quickened spells and Featherfall, which frankly your reference seems more likely to contain). I would call that at best leaving an opening Quickened spells not being disrupted, but no proof for. I know you have already brought up the fact that "In general" also solves any apparent conflict, and this time quite explicitly. It also implies that there ARE times the exception occurs (Climbing is one, isn't it? Not sure on that). Furthermore it wouldn't make sense to list all exceptions since that is a small entry in the skills list and there is a whole other section of the book to talk about spells and Concentration checks, and another section to talk about what provokes an AoO. Once again leaves the door open there, but allows it to be shut elsewhere in an area where it is more specific. Also conceptionally to have Grapple (as well as rain, riding a horse, and other senarios) be able to disrupt a Quickened spell but not a well timed boot-to-the-head flies fully in the face of reason. Not that rules can't, but it is another pebble on the heap. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I'd say maybe + maybe << explicit + consistancy. In fact you are relying on an unlikely error being made (and not errataed in the last 5 years). That's right up there with arguing the meaning of "is".</blockquote>

Verification