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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Baron Opal II" data-source="post: 8763735" data-attributes="member: 6794067">No, you are ignoring answers you don't like.No, they can't. You have to first be a pilot and be able to handle yourself in 3D movement. Which is entirely it's own skill set. Which is the center of the complaint. And don't try to say "well, that's study, isn't it?" In this case, no. You imply that someone with a cursory knowledge set should have access to whatever they want "for the good of the story". No, they shouldn't; not every time, not every case, not even occasionally. For some of us. Strike One! As you say.Look, the OP asked a mechanical question (disingenuously, I feel). Answers were given that address the question mechanically, everything from Can't to % chance to this check at that difficulty. If you want a narrative answer that's a different question. As has been stated before, narrative answers that you imply would be acceptable would also be acceptable mechanically if a feat was spent, or plan to multiclass, or some other mechanical nod to the ruleset. Implying that knowledge of a mystical matter grants access to said matter, within the rules, is, I feel, an attempt at sophistry to gain advantage.You give a moving impassioned speech to save your downed friend, and the DM knows your multiclassing into paladin, sure. You don't even need to roll. The narratives and mechanicals are both happy.But pemerton, you need to STOP putting forward this "player-facing" crap when you are making mechanical inquiries. It's trolling, and you have been doing it for years. You've generated about 3 pages of useful discussion with an additional 17 of sniping, arguing, and drive-by snark. Which is a shame because elsewhere you have discussed insights that I have found very useful and given me interesting things to think about. But, I tire of your chicanery. </blockquote>

Verification