Seems i really should have not bothered to answer any of the questions. Seriously some people need to learn to seperate morals from logic, it helps discussions
Ok, you want to examine the situation logically?
Let us decide than, using only logic and the information available on this thread, what your purpose in posting this thread
really is.
You have stated the following (my own comments and analysis are after each quote):
As a current player in my group, a spiked chain fighter, i am thinking of using my current gps to buy horses. I will then take them out arena style one by one. I'm also looking to buy wild horses as these should be cheaper (more xp per gp). Being about 2HD each and as a fighter capable of soloing them, the idea should net quite a bit of xp.
If it works it'll be scaled up in HD to whatever i can buy. Discounting the RP disadvantages (druids paying visits, etc), is there any rules probem with this?
ANALYSIS: This is something you are actually intending to do. You even have a sketch for an ongoing plan "if this works."
IMPLICATION: Either this post is misleading, or the subsequent posts describing this as a mental excercize are misleading.
My DM's no dummy of course, he'll probably restrict the number of horses on sale and such (pretty much the same things i would do when i DM).
ANALYSIS: So you know this is not going to work. See my analysis above.
IMPLICATION: This must not, therefore, be something you intend to do. This makes your initial post misleading. You could simply be foolish, but you later state that you are not an idiot. Assuming you are correct, then you must have been DELIBERATELY misleading. Why would you do this?
The main purpose of the entire thing was actually to find all loopholes and plug them. My DM and i both come up with these things when ever we switch roles so we like to test each other . The rest of the party aren't newbies either and do come up with some interesting things or point out completely illogical situations occuring by the rules
ANALYSIS: So this is just a mental excercise. You are aware that the rules are inconsistant and have loopholes. This is just some sort of a game that you and your DM play with each other.
As for metagaming, i could tell my DM that after fighting so much stuff and learning that i learn new fighting techniques and such in combat situations, it wouldn't make much sense for my fighter (int 14) not to think of arena combat being an equivalent help
ANALYSIS: So we're back to you actually thinking of ways to convince your DM to allow this? Hadn't you already tried to tell us that this is just an excercize? Unless this is a hypothetical example. But you are giving stats of your character as part of the arguement you would give your DM. That sounds less hypothetical and more like a specific tactic you intend to try.
Anyway, i'm certain my DM will counter this attempt. Like i said earlier, we like to stick tough situations for the other to solve without resorting to rule 0 or cheats likefudging dice
ANALYSIS: Again, we're back to this being an actual tactic you are going to employ. You are certain your DM will disallow your attempt. Why are you attempting it if this is, indeed, simply a sort of mental game you and your DM play to discover hypothetical loopholes in the rules?
IMPLICATION (ONGOING): You are being very inconsisant. It is seeming more and more like you are altering your stated purpose of posting to better respond to the problems people present. This is not a posting pattern that is indicitive of somebody actually trying to recieve useful information. Rather, it seems that you are attempting to get as many people arguing with you as possible.
There is no correct way to play, everyone like different things about a game at different points of time in their life. As long as the game players have no complaints, it is perfectly acceptable
ANALYSIS: So the rules as they are written are not exceedingly important to you. Why then, all the effort to expose loopholes in them? Why bring up the question here when our opinions matter not at all, since your group is the only body with authority to debate rules and restrictions that apply to it?
IMPLICATION: Another post that seems inconsistent with your others. See my ONGOING implication above.
Its using the game's rules for maximum advantage (btw our entire group come up with these ideas as well),
ANALYSIS: There seems to be a discrepancy between this and the previous quote, which states that anything is acceptable as long as the whole group agrees to it. So do you follow the rules or not?
Actually, the minotaur example as written by you is faulty. The DMG merely states that the minotaur is considered defeated if the party bypasses it. It does not say that you get no xp if you ran up to it and killed it.
Note the number of references to defeating in combat. There is no statement of goals or whatever necessary.
Here's a quote from pg 165 of the DMG
"It is usually easy to do this. Did the characters defeat the enemy in combat? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points"
Now before you start on semantics on whats an enemy, consider the roll down effects and difficulty of pin pointing what is considered an enemy.
ANALYSIS: You seem extremely familiar with the DMG and the specific text and examples that pertain to your arguement. You're even quoting relevent material.
this is a sort of rules chess we play and our group finds it fun.
ANALYSIS: Trying again to argue that this is a mental excercise.
As for the gaming experience statement, be aware that it was to simply state that i am not new to this as some of the posters seem to imply.
ANALYSIS: So you are experienced at RPing. This would seem to agree with your familiarity with the rules mentioned above.
My DM is not dumb, far from it, neither am i an idiot when i DM.
ANALYSIS: Few people think they themselves are an idiot.
IMPLICATION: Simply stating this does not make it a true statement.
As for the DM following common sense, he has no problem with that. The rules do matter though as it is the structure of the game. Simply putting the onus of solving everything to the DM merely causes more problems to crop up (as well as being too tiring), which is why house rules are discussed by the entire group and implemented. The hard part of this is that 3e rules are integrated so all follow up effects must be thought out (this is where having a rules knowledgable group is useful)
ANALYSIS: Not only are you familiar with the rules, it seems that your entire group is as well.
Heh, why should i bother stating anything? I have asked a relevant rules question in a forum called D&D rules. Think about it
ANALYSIS: You are attempting to assert the legitimacy of your post. What you say is technically true. It does not mean that anybody who posts a rules question is NOT a troll. It just means that this post is not in danger of being moved to "General Discussion".
Well it may be senseless to you, but look at my original question. Is there anything blocking this ruleswise? The logical assumption would then be that the rules are flawed somewhere.
Sticking a patch with the words "Its metagaming. Its the DM's job to shut this situation down" does nothing to change the fact the rules are still flawed somewhere
Perfection may not exist but neither shoiuld one give up searching for it
ANALYSIS: I think the very argument that has insued is insurance enough of the fact that the rules are flawed. Nobody has ever stated that the rules are, or even that they should be, flawless. You are also back to your arguement that your group is rooting out these flaws deliberately to get rid of them. What, then, about your above posts about using the rules to your own advantage and the implications that this is something you intend to actually attempt?
Hmm, either you fail to understand my posts or you have ignored points that do not fit your answer. I have repeatedly said that my DM will find a way (if possible ruleswise) to block this.
ANALYSIS: You have indeed repeatedly stated this. You have also contradicted yourself multiple times. See above. You have made enough points to fit anybody's reply to you. Your points simply fail to all agree with each other.
You could try a WWA/GC combo (been there done that long time ago) in our game. Off the top of my head, heres a few more you could try
Silly Simulacrum with Empower
Fabricate for cheap gold
Plane jumping for endless spells for casters
Armored constructs
I think those were the latest tried
ANALYSIS: Once again, we see that you are intimately aware of the intricacies flawed system that is D&D 3rd ed.
As you have pointed out, if this was a troll post i would have been stupid to have posted so much.
If i truly wanted a troll post, i would have said "My paladin killed some baby kobolds, is it evil?". Would have been much more effective too
ANALYSIS: We have not yet made a firm decision regarding your intelligence or sanity. I might also note that you did not actually
deny being a troll.
IMPLICATION: Yes, if this is a troll post you are being stupid. We already knew that.
The idea here is to have a fixed system as close as fool proof as possible. Part of it lies in the group history. After discovering the many problems of Marvel Superheroes RPG, 3 of the members tried creating one from scratch. The project halted after some time when it was shown to have a number of structral faults.
When 3e came along, it was discussed on getting it fixed based on the premise that an existing structure would be easier to fix than creating one that is foolproof from scratch
As for the players, yes they would definately try it, simply because it could be done and to see how the DM would handle it. Both the DM and i are fine with this and do enjoy the process of discovery and fixing (in between the plots that occur in game).
Any real thorny problems without a rule based answer is talked about out and ironed out after the game session so as not to disrupt the plot flow. The house rule is then implemented next session and the idea tried to see if the fix holds
I posted my idea to see if there was any rule that i missed out in considering
ANALYSIS: We have established above that not only are you and your entire group intimitely aware of most of the rules of D&D, but that you have already explored numerous ways in which they are flawed and inconsistant.
IMPLICATIONS: You are not really looking for a rule you've missed. You are well aware that you have overlooked nothing. Yet posted the question and continue to post. This is, by definition, trollish behavior.
As for me being a troll, read my response to Rel
ANALYSIS: Indeed. Remember, you didn't actually deny it.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Your statements have been inconsistent and contradictory. There seems to be no way you have posted this thread seeking real debate or actual information, regardless of you unsubstantiated assertations otherwise. You are officially a troll, and not even a clever one like our local, cuddly Bugaboo. Trolls such as yourself exist to make your lonliness seem lessened by having real people (albeit anonomous) respond to your infantile statements.
Give it up.
