|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:50PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2012
|
TBH, Cannot Move does not need to be defined, it *is* a definition.
Sort of, but they're not using it the same way that you'd expect from 4e and 3.5. It's not necessarily cannot move(TM), it could also be cannot move anything, ie, paralysed.
Isn't that what it does? If you can't move, you can't move. No actions, no sword swings, no talking, no spells, etc.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:53PM
#22
|
|
|
That's what needs clarification, it can be read multiple ways.
It would be rather nasty for someone teamed up with a medusa to cast that and be unable to even blink.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 2:03AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
TBH, Cannot Move does not need to be defined, it *is* a definition.
Sort of, but they're not using it the same way that you'd expect from 4e and 3.5. It's not necessarily cannot move(TM), it could also be cannot move anything, ie, paralysed.
Isn't that what it does? If you can't move, you can't move. No actions, no sword swings, no talking, no spells, etc.
Actually, the phrase 'can not move' does need clarification, because while 'can not move' would negate the character being able to physically move himself/herself to another location, it would not necessarily negate the act of speaking or the act of breathing. In past editions of the game, there were a few spells that only had a verbal component and thus, it was possible for a held person to cast a spell by simply speaking the incantation.
If you want 'can not move' to negate even the act of breathing, then you probably need to incorporate some way to determine when a held person dies from the inability to breathe.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:28AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
... I find it amusing how all this must pretty much exactly parallel the discussion at WotC during 4e development, with of course the result that we have both immobilized (can't move) and restrained, lol. You'd think maybe the devs would actually remember all that, or crack open a 4e book and remind themselves how all these issues have been solved already.
So, yeah, I'd call it 'immobilized'.
"Immobilized" works for me. To be fair to the devs, though, they did say they pared the playtest rules down and took out a number of things to determine whether or not they were actually something needed for the "core" rules and not something that could be part of an optional module. I wouldn't be too surprised if Immobilized was at some point one of the conditions on the list and they decided that they might be able to remove it from the core conditions list for some reason. Hopefully they'll add it back in as it would help clarify things like Hold Person and such.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 6:08AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
... I find it amusing how all this must pretty much exactly parallel the discussion at WotC during 4e development, with of course the result that we have both immobilized (can't move) and restrained, lol. You'd think maybe the devs would actually remember all that, or crack open a 4e book and remind themselves how all these issues have been solved already.
So, yeah, I'd call it 'immobilized'.
"Immobilized" works for me. To be fair to the devs, though, they did say they pared the playtest rules down and took out a number of things to determine whether or not they were actually something needed for the "core" rules and not something that could be part of an optional module. I wouldn't be too surprised if Immobilized was at some point one of the conditions on the list and they decided that they might be able to remove it from the core conditions list for some reason. Hopefully they'll add it back in as it would help clarify things like Hold Person and such.
I would rule the Restrained condition would work here.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 6:34AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
TBH, Cannot Move does not need to be defined, it *is* a definition.
Right so to one DM cannot move might mean you have effectively speed 0, to another it might mean you are paralysed. It might be defined just not very well.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 4:37PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
...
I would rule the Restrained condition would work here.
Restrained would be good too, either way. Just put in something less ambiguous than simply "cannot move". 
|
|
|
