Intelligent Blademaster with Javelin?

[Herschel]

He's telling you to get off your high horse (and seems to be blind to the irony inherent in his statement).

He really thinks he knows better than everyone else, and can't see how much of a hypocrite he's being.

*shrug* Everyone has a character flaw, that seems to be his.

LoL, irony is a funny thing.

Fact is, I have explained how & why I came to my decision/ruling. Nowhere have I said you were not entitled to your opinion, nor have I tried telling anyone how they must rule at their table. Heck, going back, were there any 1E or 2E games that didn't have a number of house rules or alternate interpretation rules? This is an open debate and I even acknowledged your point-of-view, I just disagree.

 

[Piratecat]

...Yeah. Y'know what? Insulting people who disagree with you isn't okay. If you're slipping into that, please stop it immediately -- and I'm referring to both sides of the disagreement here.

It's fine to disagree, guys. Just make sure you aren't being a jerk about it.

 

[chaotix42]

I'm actually confused that Herschel thinks my view of the feat is bending the rules. I don't see how my viewpoint isn't 100% supported by the rules, perhaps even straightjacketed by RAW. The intent/spirit of the feat may suggest it apply only to light & heavy blades, but it's written clear as day. Herschel's notion that it should apply only to a narrow category of weapons is based entirely on intent, and to limit it to such would require errata, or (the term that started all this) a house rule.

I actually thought the main issue was whether or not a thrown melee weapon continues to be considered a melee weapon when thrown...

 

[Caliban]

LoL, irony is a funny thing.

Fact is, I have explained how & why I came to my decision/ruling. Nowhere have I said you were not entitled to your opinion, nor have I tried telling anyone how they must rule at their table. Heck, going back, were there any 1E or 2E games that didn't have a number of house rules or alternate interpretation rules? This is an open debate and I even acknowledged your point-of-view, I just disagree.

No, what you have been doing is telling everyone who disagreed with you that they are bending the rules, making house rules, and/or cheating.

Obviously, we can't just be having an honest difference of opinion - (because your way is obviously the only correct one) - so you have made sure to inform us that we are actively bending the rules or making house rules and should stop pretending that we aren't.

Deny it if you want, but it's there in black and white in almost every post you have made on this thread.

And since I don't feel like getting moderated by Piratecat, I will now bow out of this thread before I say something that crosses the line.

 

[Herschel]

It's a rules debate, of course you present your view in black & white terms. As for my way being 'the correct one', yes it is from my perspective. And I present why I see it that way. That's the whole purpose of debate, is it not?

 

[Kordeth]

It's a rules debate, of course you present your view in black & white terms. As for my way being 'the correct one', yes it is from my perspective. And I present why I see it that way. That's the whole purpose of debate, is it not?

Yes, but saying "oh, we're just having an honest debate" and then following it up with "your rule-bending interpretation makes a fine house rule" is, frankly, disingenuous. It makes it very clear that you're not even listening to the actual points we're raising and are dismissing us out of hand. If you're not convinced by our arguments, say "Hey, I'm not convinced, and X, Y, and Z are the reasons I think my interpretation is right." Either that, or say "You know what, we're just not going to agree on this" and let the matter drop.

Telling people that they're "bending the rules" when they try to legitimately debate your points is dismissive and rude, roughly the equivalent of patting someone on the head and saying "it's okay to not know what you're talking about."

 

[Herschel]

Telling people that they're "bending the rules" when they try to legitimately debate your points is dismissive and rude, roughly the equivalent of patting someone on the head and saying "it's okay to not know what you're talking about."

I'm sorry if anyone feels that way. In my perspective, it is bending the rules away from intent and specific implication. I have even acknowledged the other points-of-view, just that I disagree. In those that disagree, they don't see it as bending the rules, from my perspective they are. It is not said to be insulting, just pointing out how I view it. It's just like others viewing my point as restrictive, narrow and embracing limitations by interpretation rather that direct wording.