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: 1990586" data-attributes="member: 28152">To spell it out clearer for you, since this deals with the section of the SRD you are currently boycotting, it could subjectively be ruled to fall under "Violent Weather". No rain or sand, but without appropriate gear that's some nasty wind that can accompish the same thing. So is the Con check strickly mandated for terminal velocity? Nope, this is an area of subjectivity. You could also count it as Violent or Vigorous Motion since winds at that speed (if you've ever experienced something close to it) tends to really smack you around, depending on what you are wearing. It's not the speed itself, it's the oscilating air pressure around you tossing you about. Being able to control your tumble would help a lot in that matter. Once again calling for a subjective DM interpretation of the environment. Of course this has nothing to do with whether it is a Quickened spell or not.  LOL, you are now entering the pathetic. Attempting again to draw away from what I guess you are beginning to realize is a lost cause for you. To try switch from objective rules to subjective interpretations of environments. Don't worry though, it's obvious that you couldn't bring yourself to admit it so I won't bother ask you to fess up. That brings us to....   LOL. I don't need to post it. You've brought nothing of merit forward yet. Given that last time even when I did give you concrete evidence (frankly with a lot more curtesy than you are earning right now) you simply chose to ignore it. You've used up your free ride of making an outlandish claim with nothing to back it up. So now the burden is not on me, or anyone else, until you can actually come up with something that resembles a solid reason -for- Quicken metamagic is explicitly excluded from the requirement that you must concentrate on one spell to the exclusion of other spells during the casting period to cast a given spell. So how about then we do things different this time by you starting out by bringing a coherent logical arguement forward. Not just selections of vague sentences that prove nothing about the subject at hand.  Not that it is all that pertanent to your original babbling. But seeing how you have lost that one I'll let you move onto another. I'll give you, say 48 hours. So in a couple days I'll check back and see what you have. That'll should give you plenty of time....if there is actually something to this claim of yours. Of course I expect you to give an empty answer here quite quickly that you already have proved it. You haven't of course, but I don't need to get into that now. I'll save that laugh for a couple days if you decide to endulge me such. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification