Tumble too powerful?

[Cyclone_Joker]

However, even if it works in theory (big if there since the wording definitely isn't agreed upon to actually give that ability) it's only good for theoretical optimization. There's no chance any sane DM is going to allow getting 9th level spells at 1st level. Trying a trick like that is something that will get most people simply banned from the game, and rightfully so. Since this discussion is about actual play across many tables who will most assuredly not allow that kind of cheese to work, the trick should be disallowed.

Yeah, pretty much this. I just got bored and annoyed when that guy started talking as if wizards prepared the exact same list every day and such, and decided to end it there.

 

[billd91]

The interpretation is that since the character can now cast 2nd level spells, it gets extra slots at 2nd level due to Elven Generalist, and the cycle continues.

However, even if it works in theory (big if there since the wording definitely isn't agreed upon to actually give that ability) it's only good for theoretical optimization. There's no chance any sane DM is going to allow getting 9th level spells at 1st level. Trying a trick like that is something that will get most people simply banned from the game, and rightfully so. Since this discussion is about actual play across many tables who will most assuredly not allow that kind of cheese to work, the trick should be disallowed.

Clearly, this isn't a question of rules mastery since it's not at all the intent of the writers and designers. It's a question of munchkinism, which depends on twisting the interpretation of the rules to achieve corrupted results. Rules mastery leads to shutting this kind of garbage down for what it is, the munchkin trying to take advantage of someone who reads the text but doesn't understand.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Clearly, this isn't a question of rules mastery since it's not at all the intent of the writers and designers. It's a question of munchkinism, which depends on twisting the interpretation of the rules to achieve corrupted results. Rules mastery leads to shutting this kind of garbage down for what it is, the munchkin trying to take advantage of someone who reads the text but doesn't understand.

So, what you're saying is that understanding all the rules and how the interact is munchkinism, but flagrantly disregarding the rules is proof, unquestionable absolute proof, of systems mastery? You want to rethink that?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Merely understanding how the rules work (and don't work at times) is not munchkinism. Abusing the rules for one's own gain at the expense of others in the game is. Abuse of the rules does include using interpretations of rules that clearly break the game. Pun-Pun is the foremost example of that.

Disregarding the rules when it makes the game better for everyone playing is okay, so long as everyone knows what the changes are and to a lesser extent why they're in place.

 

[billd91]

So, what you're saying is that understanding all the rules and how the interact is munchkinism, but flagrantly disregarding the rules is proof, unquestionable absolute proof, of systems mastery? You want to rethink that?

I would say that the term "understanding" in that first sentence is the one that doesn't mean what you think it means. In this context, it's a bit like try to use the rules of English grammar to prove that the word inflammable means something can't be set on fire. It's the difference between looking in narrow focus at the text compared to looking at the context.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Merely understanding how the rules work (and don't work at times) is not munchkinism. Abusing the rules for one's own gain at the expense of others in the game is. Abuse of the rules does include using interpretations of rules that clearly break the game. Pun-Pun is the foremost example of that.

Pun-Pun isn't munchkinism, it's theoretical optimization.

Disregarding the rules when it makes the game better for everyone playing is okay, so long as everyone knows what the changes are and to a lesser extent why they're in place.

No argument here. His bizarre statement that it magically meant systems mastery, however, was absurd.

I would say that the term "understanding" in that first sentence is the one that doesn't mean what you think it means. In this context, it's a bit like try to use the rules of English grammar to prove that the word inflammable means something can't be set on fire. It's the difference between looking in narrow focus at the text compared to looking at the context.

It's a good thing you didn't say it, then, because if you actually did say it then I'd be forced to laugh at both that and you.

Regardless, though, I'll take this clumsy attempt at a dodge as your concession.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Pun-Pun isn't munchkinism, it's theoretical optimization.
No argument here. His bizarre statement that it magically meant systems mastery, however, was absurd.
It's a good thing you didn't say it, then, because if you actually did say it then I'd be forced to laugh at both that and you.

Regardless, though, I'll take this clumsy attempt at a dodge as your concession.

I would recommend you not hold everyone to be so precise with their words since their understanding and interpretation of their own language use could very well be different than your understanding and interpretation of it. Let people use relaxed language. These forums are not legal documents where precision matters so much.

Regarding Pun-Pun, simply going through the thought exercise of building him would be TO, yes. However, forcing him upon a group who clearly have not consented to his use is, among other things, munchkinism. I would hope the context was enough to show as such, but it didn't seem to be for you.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Regarding Pun-Pun, simply going through the thought exercise of building him would be TO, yes. However, forcing him upon a group who clearly have not consented to his use is, among other things, munchkinism.

You mean that someone would actually try to play Pun-Pun? You're... You're joking, right?

I would hope the context was enough to show as such, but it didn't seem to be for you.

I couldn't see any other context that makes sense, because Pun-Pun is stupid and no context makes sense.I can't believe that even the most messed in the head nut would try to use it in a game.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You mean that someone would actually try to play Pun-Pun? You're... You're joking, right?
I couldn't see any other context that makes sense, because Pun-Pun is stupid and no context makes sense.I can't believe that even the most messed in the head nut would try to use it in a game.

I wouldn't put it past some nutjobs to try to play Pun-Pun, though probably not to his full power. Any DM with a spine would kill the idea immediately. Besides, I did say that Pun-Pun was an example of such rules interpretations that clearly break the game.

 

[N'raac]

The interpretation is that since the character can now cast 2nd level spells, it gets extra slots at 2nd level due to Elven Generalist and Domain Wizard, and the cycle continues from those two slots.

However, even if it works in theory (big if there since the wording definitely isn't agreed upon to actually give that ability) it's only good for theoretical optimization. There's no chance any sane DM is going to allow getting 9th level spells at 1st level. Trying a trick like that is something that will get most people simply banned from the table, and rightfully so. Since this discussion is about actual play across many tables who will most assuredly not allow that kind of cheese to work, the trick should be disallowed.

By the way Cyclone, when you're the one making claims, you're the one who must show the entirety of your claims, preferably with citations, if you want people to actually take you seriously. The onus is on you to show your work.

Not much to add.

If you don't want the Munchkins to stick around, stop feeding them cheese.