Search results

I think it's "plate", not "plate mail", so it's more akin to full plate armor. If you're transitioning from earlier editions (esp. 1st), full plate armor was an optional bit of technology anyway. I equate plate mail with scale armor in the new edition since the illustration for scale seems to...

No - I don't. I think you've gotten my position on this backwards.

The way threads work AFAIK is that if you're responding to a particular statement you can quote it. You posted a general statement on the thread and started off with "why is this thread still going on?" "Why is this thread still going on?" is virtually nonsense if it's just directed at one...

Hmm. This is a reading comprehension issue. AFAICT Mallus is talking about a general principle. But obviously if you had understood much of what I wrote in the last couple posts you would know that I agree with you that they HAD established the conditions and thus I was able to talk about...

This doesn't make any logical sense to me. "Apparently" contradictory means that it may or may not be so there's nothing for me to explain. The problem with things that are *actually* contradictory is inherent in the definition. Yes, but in general you have to establish what those initial...

I've only come across one other thing that rises to the same level of contradictory, I think, but it's a big deal IMO. And that's what I alluded to in the OP: There are places in the DMG where the skill DCs are decided by simulationist principles (for example - listening through a door has DCs...

Your post (that I didn't quote in it's entirety) is largely a thoughtful take on the subject IMO. It would have been a great read on page 2 of this thread. However thoughtful though, it appears that you haven't read (or understood - I can't tell) nearly any of this thread, my particular...

Your indignation here is unwarranted and consequently an unfair tactic. Unless I'm mistaken, you already said that you lied. In fact, you said it was ok that you lied sometimes. So by your definition you've already called yourself a liar (which I actually don't think because i don't share...

First of all - I pointed out that what you said was incorrect - and you haven't addressed your mistatement. Instead, you've immediately changed the subject to that of something you find ironic. I think we will both agree that you will find something to be right about. But this is not a...

The rest of the paragraph reinforces the rationalization given for the ruling. But the reason for the ruling was not what you're claiming it was. It's clearly stated what the reason for the ruling was. The rest of the section does not change this. Me too. They're not directly related. I've...

Actually, telling the player something false about a ruling you just made, and trying to remember falsehoods, as you go forward, is a lot of work too. What's not a lot of work is just following the rules. There's less to think about. This isn't about being a computer. A computer can't...

"Thrown around"!? It's plainly what was advocated in the quoted piece. What YOUR particular actions are isn't even relevant. So why employ this convoluted logic that seems to twist what was actually written in the DMG and substituted with your OWN advice? And now characterize a rather...

I wasn't talking about "this kind of nerfing". I was talking about the specific quoted example, which described the DMs motivations. That's not to say that I agree/don't agree with your generalization, it's just outside the scope of what I was referring to. I've tried to avoid having my...

I agree it is another matter. And one that logically I would have no reason to think the DM would be honest about anyway. I would have no logical reason to take seriously an assement from a DM about how often he lies when he believes that he is justified in lying. The very reasons that he...

No, actually, the ritual won't work if there are counter-magics in place. Not only the Forbiddance spell, but it is in the spirit of the rules that other rituals/powers/conditions, invented by the DM, splatbooks he uses, etc. exist that can thwart this power. But your example is completely...

If I thought all people agreed with me, wouldn't this thread come as a surprise? Seriously, wouldn't your objections by themselves already prove the point you're stating here? Did I say that there were only 3 people that disagreed with me, and not 8? Not 9? And a further irony is, what...

No! None of us have missed that point! :-) Those "certain things" things that you're talking about are lying. And bad DMing. So I think we all agree with your assessment here, it's just that your nebulous language conveniently side-steps the core issues. So yes, if I completely ignore...

No he says "throw a monkey wrench into YOUR plans". "You" being the DM. This has nothing, immediately, to do with ruining the fun. It's only a series of equivalencies that you create that does this. And if you think the DMs plans are identical with the fun of the session, then you're really...

Ultimately, everyone who is arguing with me about the interpretation of the passage cannot contradict me that the passage says what I think it says - including you from what I read of your explanation. But you mask things like the "lying" in terms of more nebulous phrases to make it sound ok...

The consensus was, in the beginning, that no one really wanted to hear part 2 since part 1 was so bad (and personally insulting to Wyatt, and other things). If I were a good DM, I'd probably just lie to you and claim I made no such statement. That would help preserve the suspense. :-)...