TOPIC: Slight change to Free Movement

Free Movement no longer prevents a character from being constricted or swallowed.

Currently, Belt of Freedom is the only token that prevents constriction.

Correct me if I overlooked something, but to date no tokens prevent one from being swallowed.

The next release versions of the PHB and DMG will reflect this change and use consistent wording to define this ability.

Sounds reasonable. I have to say, Free Movement has never prevented anyone in my party from being swallowed. However, Shadowskin has.

That seems very fair, I wouldn't have associated either of those with Free Movement.

Warning: Hair-Splitting Ahead

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Shadowskin has [prevented swallowing]

That was probably a side-effect of something else. Generally speaking, a monster has to hit you to be able to swallow you. Assuming that was the case in the example you referenced, the Shadowskin effect negated the hit which in turn negated the swallow. If there were to be a situation where a monster did not need to score a hit to swallow a character, Shadowskin could not prevent it.

Druegar wrote: Warning: Hair-Splitting Ahead

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Shadowskin has [prevented swallowing]

That was probably a side-effect of something else. Generally speaking, a monster has to hit you to be able to swallow you. Assuming that was the case in the example you referenced, the Shadowskin effect negated the hit which in turn negated the swallow. If there were to be a situation where a monster did not need to score a hit to swallow a character, Shadowskin could not prevent it.

Druegar wrote: Warning: Hair-Splitting Ahead

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Shadowskin has [prevented swallowing]

That was probably a side-effect of something else. Generally speaking, a monster has to hit you to be able to swallow you. Assuming that was the case in the example you referenced, the Shadowskin effect negated the hit which in turn negated the swallow. If there were to be a situation where a monster did not need to score a hit to swallow a character, Shadowskin could not prevent it.

I disagree that avoiding damage means automatically avoiding being swallowed in most cases. When I am DMing D&D, if a purple worm attacks a PC but they take no damage via the invulnerability spell (or something similar), they can still be swallowed - they just don't take the damage from the attack that swallows. That is the most logical way to handle it. I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

5e moved to adding a saving throw (in most cases) to avoid being swallowed (rather than it being automatic on a hit or crit.) It might make sense for TD to do the same (and modify the save DC based on the attack roll - a nat 20 should probably mean a higher saving throw.)

Fred

Fred K wrote:

Druegar wrote: Warning: Hair-Splitting Ahead

SnakeEyes (Eric) wrote: Shadowskin has [prevented swallowing]

That was probably a side-effect of something else. Generally speaking, a monster has to hit you to be able to swallow you. Assuming that was the case in the example you referenced, the Shadowskin effect negated the hit which in turn negated the swallow. If there were to be a situation where a monster did not need to score a hit to swallow a character, Shadowskin could not prevent it.

I disagree that avoiding damage means automatically avoiding being swallowed in most cases. When I am DMing D&D, if a purple worm attacks a PC but they take no damage via the invulnerability spell (or something similar), they can still be swallowed - they just don't take the damage from the attack that swallows. That is the most logical way to handle it. I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

5e moved to adding a saving throw (in most cases) to avoid being swallowed (rather than it being automatic on a hit or crit.) It might make sense for TD to do the same (and modify the save DC based on the attack roll - a nat 20 should probably mean a higher saving throw.)

Fred

Per TD rules using shadow skin negates the hit and the swallow does not work. It's not handled the same as D&D does.

Fred K wrote: I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

You are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. It doesn't prevent damage. It prevents you from being hit at all. More like it gets you out of the way at the last second. That is why if you use Shadowskin to avoid a hit, you also don't get to apply retribution damage to the thing that was going to hit you.

Fiddy wrote:

Fred K wrote: I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

You are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. It doesn't prevent damage. It prevents you from being hit at all. More like it gets you out of the way at the last second. That is why if you use Shadowskin to avoid a hit, you also don't get to apply retribution damage to the thing that was going to hit you.

So it would be more like phasing out of the way

i thought "girdle of the puffer fish" kept you from getting swallowed. i might be wrong?

Fiddy wrote:

Fred K wrote: I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

You are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. It doesn't prevent damage. It prevents you from being hit at all. More like it gets you out of the way at the last second. That is why if you use Shadowskin to avoid a hit, you also don't get to apply retribution damage to the thing that was going to hit you.

Actually I think you are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. "For stacking purposes, this cloak’s damage-negating ability is considered a stoneskin effect." To me that sounds like it is negating the damage not the to hit. I don't know this but it is not explicit imo.

jedibcg wrote:

Fiddy wrote:

Fred K wrote: I think of Shadowskin as like a force field - the worm could still swallow the player in its newly formed egg shaped forcefield (like the coating on a pill.)

You are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. It doesn't prevent damage. It prevents you from being hit at all. More like it gets you out of the way at the last second. That is why if you use Shadowskin to avoid a hit, you also don't get to apply retribution damage to the thing that was going to hit you.

Actually I think you are thinking of Shadowskin wrong. "For stacking purposes, this cloak’s damage-negating ability is considered a stoneskin effect." To me that sounds like it is negating the damage not the to hit. I don't know this but it is not explicit imo.

The "for stacking purposes" section feels secondary to the first paragraph. Probably best to let Druegar clarify either way.