Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 4364139" data-attributes="member: 1008">The situations you outline only come into play if you are reading the rules strictly literally. And, if you're reading the rules literally, attempting to attack an inviisible paladin who has marked you means you take Divine Challenge damage under all circumstances, so the situations you outline can't come into play.If, on the other hand, you're attempting to play by the spirit of Divine Challenge, regardless what the literal wording might say, and rule that making an attempt to strike the paladin doesn't draw challenge damage, then you would also rule that such an attempt must be made in good faith. Thus, you cannot claim &quot;I think the paladin is beside the wizard&quot; when you know he is not beside the wizard. Ergo, the situations you outline can't come into play.In short, you're presenting a situation where we ignore the literal rules, but then use the literal rules to manipulate the situation to an unfair advantage. That's called hypocrisy, and no ruleset can overcome that sort of&nbsp; attitude.While I can barely begin to fathom Hypersmurf's perspective on this issue, I can at least see how a group of likeminded individuals could go with his interpretation, come to a consensus and have a fun game. If I knew what I was getting into up front, I might even be able to enjoy such a game myself. However, I cannot see how any group that isn't fundamentally disfunctional already could run into the sort of issues Runestar mentions and find that they cause a legitimate problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 4364139, member: 1008"] The situations you outline only come into play if you are reading the rules strictly literally. And, if you're reading the rules literally, attempting to attack an inviisible paladin who has marked you means you take Divine Challenge damage under all circumstances, so the situations you outline [i]can't[/i] come into play. If, on the other hand, you're attempting to play by the spirit of Divine Challenge, regardless what the literal wording might say, and rule that making an attempt to strike the paladin doesn't draw challenge damage, then you would also rule that such an attempt must be made in good faith. Thus, you cannot claim "I think the paladin is beside the wizard" when you know he is not beside the wizard. Ergo, the situations you outline [i]can't[/i] come into play. In short, you're presenting a situation where we ignore the literal rules, but then use the literal rules to manipulate the situation to an unfair advantage. That's called hypocrisy, and no ruleset can overcome that sort of attitude. While I can barely begin to fathom Hypersmurf's perspective on this issue, I can at least see how a group of likeminded individuals could go with his interpretation, come to a consensus and have a fun game. If I knew what I was getting into up front, I might even be able to enjoy such a game myself. However, I cannot see how any group that isn't fundamentally disfunctional already could run into the sort of issues Runestar mentions and find that they cause a legitimate problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification