Caliban said:
yes, if you disagree with it, it must be "patently insane". And whining about my "tenure" here makes it your position so much stronger. Just for the record, I have never used my longevity on this board as a reason for why I'm right about something, and I have never put someone down because they haven't been posting for as long as I have. There are plenty of people who have been posting for longer than I have, and it doesn't stop me from disagreeing with them, and I don't bring it up when I'm talking to them. So why are you trying to make such a big deal about it?
I made one flippant comment, and you are acting like we brought the mob and torches out. Lighten up dude, and grow a slightly thicker skin. Seriously.
You jump in out of the blue with *nothing* but an insult, then claim *I* started with the attitude. Garbage. I *specifically* restrain my self from flippantly insulting people here, because the moderators have made SUCH a big deal about everyone being civilized.
I'm partly bringing up your tenure because I can see the eventual outcome of this, and the impact it will have on that outcome. I've also brought it up because it seems as if you feel that's one of the reasons you can just flout the conventions I mentioned above. Maybe I'm wrong. But in a place where people go out of their way to not make anyone even the slightest bit uncomfortable, it seems odd someone would break that convention without a *reason*. I'm just searching for that reason.
Originally posted by Caliban
Here, you are trying to tell us exactly what can and cannot be used when interpreting the feat. You chose to limit yourself to only what you consider rules text, and completely ignore any "flavor text", despite the fact that it's obvious even to yourself what the intent of the feat is (as you stated in in an earlier post).
I chose not to limit myself in this fashion. Game designers are human, and don't always say things exactly the right way. That's when you look at the intent of the feat, which even you were able to see. You just chose to ignore it, but others have not.
I'm not trying to TELL anyone how to run their game. I'm saying that *interpretation* isn't *definition*, and this was one of the things that caused chaos in previous editions. Nor do I choose to ignore the intent of the feat. But I still claim it's poorly written.
Even a first-year munchkin could make the argument that even if the opponent is "looking elsewhere", since there's no facing in 3E, it doesn't affect his ability to threaten an AoO against you. It doesn't affect the intent of the feat, or the wrongness of the belief, but it underscores the importance of having clearly defined rules when you're playing in a game *with* rules.
3E has had a good track record with this kind of style so far, and it's been fairly established as it's standard. It's a
good standard, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think this is a big deal, but expecting me to sit quietly and agree with you when you claim I can't think for myself is a little unrealistic, don't you think?
).
