D&D 5E Wind Walk and Grappled

[Lanefan]

Indeed. It makes the RAW wind walk spell much more powerful.

But it does say you're in "cloud form", so how else to interpret that?

 

[kigmatzomat]

Also... I tell my players that they look like Mr. Small in wind walk form. : )


View attachment 360684

That is a yeti who uses conditioner.

Wind walk should look more like a ghost or air elemental. The very first sentence of the spell uses the terms "gaseous", "wisps of cloud" and "cloud form" to describe the targets.

I mean, despite being able to move at 30mph, they are unable to so much as lift a sheet of paper, let alone hold a t-shirt aloft.

 

[beaumontsebos]

That is a yeti who uses conditioner.

Wind walk should look more like a ghost or air elemental. The very first sentence of the spell uses the terms "gaseous", "wisps of cloud" and "cloud form" to describe the targets.

I mean, despite being able to move at 30mph, they are unable to so much as lift a sheet of paper, let alone hold a t-shirt aloft.

LOL! Mr. Small is a cloud!

 

[beaumontsebos]

But it does say you're in "cloud form", so how else to interpret that?

As a DM, I tend to not infer additional game mechanics to spells or other "powers" unless they are explicit. For me, if Wind Walk was supposed to provide any additional mechanical benefits beyond what's in the spell description, it would say so.

 

[Seramus]

I'm reminded of the "If See Invisibility let you negate the benefits of Invisibility, it would say so" debate.

 

[Reef]

I'm reminded of the "If See Invisibility let you negate the benefits of Invisibility, it would say so" debate.

If this was a real debate, and not just a joke, I think I'm going to have to go disconnect my internet and lie down for awhile...

 

[Clint_L]

If this was a real debate, and not just a joke, I think I'm going to have to go disconnect my internet and lie down for awhile...

The spell doesn't specifically state that it negates the advantages of invisibility with regard to the user, so some folks have claimed that, RAW, it doesn't. I think this is basically just folks being facetious.

 

[beaumontsebos]

I'm reminded of the "If See Invisibility let you negate the benefits of Invisibility, it would say so" debate.

HA! Right? I'm absolutely sure all of these issues will be resolved in the 2024 core books!

 

[Reef]

HA! Right? I'm absolutely sure all of these issues will be resolved in the 2024 core books!

Unless they're going to be 1000+ pages, I suspect it's more likely they'll rely on gamers having at least a modicum of common sense...

 

[Cadence]

The spell doesn't specifically state that it negates the advantages of invisibility with regard to the user, so some folks have claimed that, RAW, it doesn't. I think this is basically just folks being facetious.

Some folks being Crawford in a serious ruling (Google will turn up the video).