Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mulkhoran" data-source="post: 494320" data-attributes="member: 894">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.&nbsp; 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.I'm not trying to TELL anyone how to run their game.&nbsp; I'm saying that *interpretation* isn't *definition*, and this was one of the things that caused chaos in previous editions.&nbsp; 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 &quot;looking elsewhere&quot;, since there's no facing in 3E, it doesn't affect his ability to threaten an AoO against you.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mulkhoran, post: 494320, member: 894"] 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. 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 [b]good[/b] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification