Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyronax" data-source="post: 5118768" data-attributes="member: 822">No that's a good point. In most groups that wouldn't be an issue. My longest running 3.X group (2003-2007) unfortunately was riddled with rules lawyers and/or rather anal retentive players who always questioned the DM (and metagamed). I remember towards the end a 12th level 3.5 session devolving into a heated argument about siege weapons --- specifically the flight trajectory of ballista bolts (actually arrows fired by frost giant archers). I -- as the DM -- was trying to keep the session moving and merely handwaved that the ballista bolts were specifically designed to arc over a curtain wall of a castle and thus didn't face cover penalties for target acquisition. Anyway it wasn't that big a deal, but one of the players whips out some appendix rule regarding siegecraft from the Complete Warrior (a book I hadn't read too thoroughly) three *long* rounds after the damage from the ballista had already had a number of repercussions.Anyway, that might be a stupid example, but despite my best attempts at putting the thing to rest and telling them that I stand by my ruling and we can discuss it after the session it wouldn't die. I stopped playing with that group not long after. My point is that situations like that cropped up much more frequently in 3.X than most other systems. 3.X seemed to be ready made for rules lawyers to brow beat the DM. I played in enough varied situations and with different players to prove that to myself. In these extreme situations I felt compelled to fully stat up the monsters and NPCs so that if some player starts complaining I could just say -- oh well your wrong X NPC can do X action because he has access to this power or spell thanks to X feat or prestige class. That was a sure fire way to WIN an argument -- because with extreme groups like that you couldn't just get by with 'that's the way the monster is or I'm the DM we can discuss this after the session is over'. In less extreme groups however, the amount of rules definitely was manageable and I sometimes miss 3.X for its more simluationist qualities. And yes 4e can be subject to all sorts of different problems (mainly involving fiddly bits) so no one accuse me of starting some edition war. C.I.D.</blockquote>

Verification