Archery Full Round Attack

[Water Bob]

You keep saying things like that, but this thread is full of you saying, "Shouldn't the rules logically say [this] and not [that]?"

If that's not a discussion about changing the rules, then I don't know what is.

How else would you suggest that I discuss the rules?




EDIT: And, I guess I should more properly say that, "I don't know if I want to change the rules." The discussion isn't about changing the rules. It's about deciding if the rule is a good rule. Should it stay the way it is, or should a House Rule be used?

So, in a way, I guess it can be construed that the discussion is about changing the rules--it's just that changing the rule isn't my goal. My goal is to understand the rule and then decide if it needs changing. There's subtle but important difference there.

 

[Water Bob]

People automatically assume you're trying to change a rule or etc because so many of them are set in stone. What kind of discussion is there to be had about getting a second attack from BAB for instance? Practically none unless you're trying to make tweaks or something.

My thought process normally works like this:

1 - Read the rule.

2 - Raise my eyebrow is something strikes me as strange. "Hmm... That's kinda strange the way this game is handling flanking."

3 - Question (and sometimes discuss here, in a thread) the rule. "Question: Isn't it logical that a person can flank a foe by just being to his sides (his flanks) or behind him? Can't a person flank another without having to have a partner on the other side of the target? And, why does the flanker have to be exactly diagonal from his foe in order to get the flanking bonus? Why can't a person flank, still have a partner facing the foe, and be behind the foe but not in a straight line? Why did the designers make the rule this way?"

4 - But, I never change a rule until I've looked at hit, exhaustively, from every angle. I think many GMs are too quick to House Rule something as soon as they read a rule that strikes them as "wrong". I think the people who created the game spent a heck of a lot more time designing it, and what I want to do is understand their ultimate decision.

Thus, the discussions....





EDIT: Here's a good case in point: THIS THREAD I just started to discuss an idea I had that I'm calling "Reactions". It's a variation on the Ready Action. Am I convinced that making a House Rule for Reactions in my game is a good idea? Nope. I'm just discussing the possibility.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Bob, you're sounding a bit too critical of the rules and such. Sure it can be useful to take some things with a grain of salt, but this is first and foremost a game.

The reason flankers have to be on opposite sides is because of how creatures naturally react to things. If presented with two threats, one will typically try to turn to be able to see both threats at once, or at least keep an eye on them. When there are threats on opposite sides though, the person has a much more difficult time reacting due to not being able to keep track of the dangers as well.

To use a modern counterpart, isn't it easier to carry on two conversations when both people are in front of you rather than on either side?

 

[Vegepygmy]

So, in a way, I guess it can be construed that the discussion is about changing the rules--it's just that changing the rule isn't my goal. My goal is to understand the rule and then decide if it needs changing. There's subtle but important difference there.

Subtle? Yes. Important? I don't think so.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The real question, in my mind, is even if Water Bob wanted to specifically change a rule, why all the negative reactions? Even if his goal was to talk things out and then change the rule when the talk was over, why do people post but not contribute? That's what strikes me as odd.

Water Bob is telling you how to play. He's not even planning on changing any rules in his own game, necessarily (I think he has one house rule in his game, which is probably less than most groups). And yes, thread after thread seems filled with aggressive posts. I just find that odd.

As always, play what you like

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: And, I guess I should more properly say that, "I don't know if I want to change the rules." The discussion isn't about changing the rules. It's about deciding if the rule is a good rule. Should it stay the way it is, or should a House Rule be used?

So, in a way, I guess it can be construed that the discussion is about changing the rules

I mean, let me be clear: I am 100%, totally, on-board and okay with DMs changing rules in their home games. House rules: "I'm for 'em!"

I just don't get the repeated protestation that you aren't starting threads about trying to change the rules when, nearly!, every single thread you start could be summed up as, "Should I change [Rule X]? Y / N / Why?"

I also agree that you should understand the rules before you go futzing around with them - which, I will admit, is my chief source of "annoyance"* with the recent couple of your threads.

Take your flanking thread; "Do you need a friend to flank someone, or could you just kind-of attack them from the side? Also, we're using the optional variant rules that allow you to kind-of attack them from the side."

A: "Yes, you can; you just said you're using the rules that allow you to do so. If you aren't using that rule, you can't. "



* - Note: Even "annoyance" is, in this case, too strong a word. I'm not actually annoyed with you; I just can't think of a milder word that carries the same sense of, "Ah - another WB thread. Here we go again!"

 

[Dandu]

I believe the word you are looking for is "tedium".

 

[Water Bob]

Bob, you're sounding a bit too critical of the rules and such.

I don't think so. Not at all. I've got a critical mind, and I'm a GM. It's my job to understand, completely, the rules. When my players ask me a question, I want to have an answer for them. So, I investigate everything that I don't quite understand, agree with, or have a question about.

That's exactly what these forums are for, yes? To discuss the game?

That's what is happening in my threads.

The reason flankers have to be on opposite sides is because of how creatures naturally react to things. If presented with two threats, one will typically try to turn to be able to see both threats at once, or at least keep an eye on them. When there are threats on opposite sides though, the person has a much more difficult time reacting due to not being able to keep track of the dangers as well.

Sure, but the rules say a flank doesn't happen unless a foe is in square B, the character is in square E, and another foe is in square H (or one of the other direct line configurations).

ABC
DEF
GHJ

It seems logical tome that a foe in B, character in E, and second foe in G should also get the flanking bonus.

I understand that, with a line drawn through, and no facing rules, that the rule is meant as an easy way to determine flank. That's probably why the designers did what they did.

The real question, in my mind, is even if Water Bob wanted to specifically change a rule, why all the negative reactions? Even if his goal was to talk things out and then change the rule when the talk was over, why do people post but not contribute? That's what strikes me as odd.

That strikes me as quite strange, too. Why post, talk about how disgusted you are with the poster or the topic, and turn the thread to negativity? I don't get that at all.

Why not just ignore the thread and keep moving to what interests you?

Dandu is a great example. He pokes his head in, never offering anything constructive, usually babbling some Buddah idiocy, and then darts off. Why even come to my threads to begin with if I annoy you?

You sure as heck don't see me peaking in on Dandu's threads, do you?

Nope. I don't like the guy, so I just stay away from him. Simple as that.

I just don't get the repeated protestation that you aren't starting threads about trying to change the rules when, nearly!, every single thread you start could be summed up as, "Should I change [Rule X]? Y / N / Why?"

Did you not just read up thread where I explained that?

I've got a question about a rule. I don't know if I'm going to House Rule it. I didn't start the thread with changing the rule, in mind.

The idea is to get some input from people who've got more experience with the game and have probably tackled the same issue and found answers before.

I also agree that you should understand the rules before you go futzing around with them - which, I will admit, is my chief source of "annoyance"* with the recent couple of your threads.

I didn't realize you were annoyed, but I'll say to you what I've said to a couple of others: IF I ANNOY YOU, THEN PLAIN IGNORE MY THREADS.

Simple as that.

If I post a thread and nobody answers it, it won't hurt my feelings. Trust me on this.

It's better a thread that nobody participates in that an irritated, snarky, back-n-forth.

Take your flanking thread; "Do you need a friend to flank someone, or could you just kind-of attack them from the side? Also, we're using the optional variant rules that allow you to kind-of attack them from the side."

And, that thread has had a positive effect on my game. I'm not going to use the Optional Flanking Rules next time and see how it plays.





We've only had 4 game sessions and very little combat. We've had a lot of role playing. I expect a lot of combat our next game session, coming up in a couple of weeks. Thus, you've been seeing me investigate the combat rules.

 

[Water Bob]

I believe the word you are looking for is "tedium".

This is exactly what I spoke about above with Dandu. He was posting as I was posting, I guess.

See, he jumps in here, adds a little oil to the fire to keep it burning, never offering anything constructive.

[MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION]: Dude. It's clear. You and I don't like each other. When was the last time I popped into one of your threads and tried to start or keep flames going? Never! That's right, because I avoid your threads. I don't mess with you.

Every head-butt you and I've had has come when you've done something like what you did above. For some reason, you're like a nat that just won't go away.

Can't you do me the same courtesy and just leave me alone?

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then just be an adult and stop popping into my threads like this with a snarky comment or support for someone who is at odds with me.

Do you think you can do that?

 

[Dandu]

It is spelled "gnat", fyi.

See, he jumps in here, adds a little oil to the fire to keep it burning, never offering anything constructive.

I must protest. So far I have said the following on this thread:

No.

Context: In response to what seemed to be a yes or no question requesting our opinions without asking for explanations.

Or characters with Rapid Shot before level 6. But that's due to having lots of training, ie, a feat.

Context: In response to someone pointing out that only characters of level 6 or higher get to lauch two arrows per round.

Water Bob can see Empirate's true nature, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Context: Hoping to defuse tensions after an instance of flaming.

I must point out that the number of attacks/round a character makes is not indicative of the total number of attacks that occur in a round. Characters are constantly parrying back and forth; the attack rolls a fighter makes only indicate how many of his attacks get to hit.

Or something like that. I think that's what the PHB says about combat paraphrased. If someone could find a more accurate description that'd be nice.

Context: Clarifying how the abstract nature of D&D combat works.

I love this thread.

Context: In response to many pages of good points by several posters.