@NautArch There are no hidden rules. The ability does exactly what it says it does, and nothing else. If it doesn't say that it prevents further modifications to a creatures speed, then it doesn't prevent further modifications
@RevenantBacon I am never a fan of the rule "Because it doesn't say I can't, I can". IF that's your logic, then I'm not buying. I think the Q&A I just linked gives you much more ammo.
@RevenantBacon As i said, we're going to disagree on this. I"m not changing my mind, and I don't think you will either. So I'm respectfully removing myself from the topic.
And I think the Q&A on speed zero/no movement is a MUCH better starting point.
I think that's in pretty bad faith of you. And honestly, it's actually pretty upsetting. I state my point of view, you tell me I'm wrong, and refuse to expound on the matter or continue in any form of reasonable discourse about it.
@RevenantBacon I appreciate your clear presentation here. I disagree with your conclusion. I think your answer would be improved by more explicitly addressing the contradiction created by your example. Sentinel says, "it's speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn." If at any point later in the turn the creature's speed is not 0, we have contradicted the text of Sentinel.
Yeah, you have two contradictory rules at play. That needs to be at least acknowledged, and making a specific-beats-general argument is, I think, necessary for resolving that contradiction.
> That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
@RevenantBacon No, dude, we have these rules for a reason - there is nothing that stops you continuing that conversation there with anyone who wants to participate
This is the guidance given for resolving contradictions. The example given contains a contradiction "your speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn" and "your speed becomes 60' for the rest of the turn"
See, the problem is, I was told I was wrong about something, then the person who made that accusation has since refused to explain in any capacity how they came to such a conclusion, then moved the conversation away to a mostly unused side room where it was unlikely to be seen
@RevenantBacon They don't owe you an explanation. I can't see anywhere where you've been told without explanation that you're wrong. Naut has said they don't agree with a some specific logic, disagree on a piece of logic/meaning, and don't want to continue it. There is nothing to gain by continuing to dig for that, so don't.
@Someone_Evil And I haven't been told how that logic is wrong. Is it because I misread somethnig? Am I misunderstanding some fundamental concept of the rule? Dunno. I was just told I was wrong woth no actual explanation as to why.
You interpret things differently. Language is complicated and ambiguous. You can easily both be correct by different interpretations. What more is there that needs to happen here? Nobody is going to force someone to take part in a conversation they don't want to even if we could. All that is left, is to move on, or to talk about it with others.
look, dragons exists for a reason - there's clearly a few people here who are still intent on having this particular conversation but it's a bad vibe for the main chat so please let's move it there to resolve
> That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
This is the guidance given for resolving contradictions. The example given contains a contradiction "your speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn" and "your speed becomes 60' for the rest of the turn"
now from where I'm sat what NautArch said seemed reasonable - your argument was that a spell didn't explicitly say it prevented a certain thing, so it didn't prevent a certain thing, and he summarised that as "the rules don't say I can't, so I can"
maybe you don't agree with that but it's not, on the face of it, a wild thing to say in response
@ThomasMarkov well, I'm only going by what's in the chat.
Naut realised that you two disagreed about that and were not likely to come to an agreement so he tried to respectfully disengage and leave you to it and that's where that should have ended
@RevenantBacon The exact meaning of written text is also an opinion. Currently I'm dealing with a difference of opinion between myself and two compilers about what the value of TRUE should be.
FYI, found the thing that proves my point. Take a look at the Grappled condition: A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
