Monks with shields??

[Caliban]

Shouldn't decision making stop after the first ("me"). The only other people on that list should be sitting around the table with you. You are the DM, you make the decisions. Your players help. It shouldn't matter where you get the input; if it's fair, it works, and you like it, that is all that should matter.

Listing certain special individuals as your "Rules Gods" just puts them in too much power over your game. Maybe that's what I try to rally against when I go on one of these crusades? Perhaps I'm trying to get people like you to quit licking the hands of a select few self-appointed gurus, and think for yourself. If someone makes a point that shields aren't "Armor", show you a few places where this may be the case, and seem to have a reason, then it is up to you to decide if you like it or not. It is also then up to you if the monk is able to use them. This being a seperate sub-section of the broader debate. But hearing someone out, seeing their argument, and then dismissing it as weak, inferior and a waste of time is just plain rude and disingenuous. Not to mention haughty. Especially when what they have to say has valid points.

Oh my god, I'm one of them!

Corwin, I think you have crossed a line with your characterizations. (Just my opinion, nothing official. I am still allowed to have opinions, right? )

And Icebear, for the love of god stop licking my hand. You don't know where it's been.

 

[Artoomis]

Oh my god, I'm one of THEM!

 

[Corwin]

Corwin, I think you have crossed a line with your characterizations. (Just my opinion, nothing official. I am still allowed to have opinions, right? )

What line and what characterizations?

This seems to be nothing but an attempt at a humor post. Yet, you are also making an effort to discredit me by claiming I've gone too far? I need more input before I can understand what you mean by this.

 

[Caliban]

What line and what characterizations?

This seems to be nothing but an attempt at a humor post. Yet, you are also making an effort to discredit me by claiming I've gone too far? I need more input before I can understand what you mean by this.

"I'm trying to get people like you to quit licking the hands of a select few self-appointed gurus"

A) I've never appointed myself anything (other than the DM of my home campaign). I've never claimed to be official, infallible, or a guru. Characterizing me in this fashion crosses the line into implied insults. In my opinion.

B) Telling Ice Bear that he and people like him are licking the hands of the gurues characterizes them as servile and weak willed (when apparently his only crime was in not accepting your arguements). This, in my opinion, crosses the line into outright rudeness.

But what do I know? I'm condescending, arbitrary, and insulting. With sticky hands.

 

[hong]

If you want to ignore the monk's class limitation on wearing armor, that is indeed your prerogative. However, that would have to be house rule, and as such isn't relevant to the question at hand.

Everything is a house rule. However, some houses are larger than others.

If the Sage confirming this isn't good enough for you, I got the same answer from Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook, and Jonathan Tweet when I made a big issue about this question last year. Like it or not, shields are armor, and give an armor bonus to AC.

Screw Sean, Monte and Jonathan, then.

Note that I happen to agree with them that shields should be treated as worn armour in this case. However, I'm making that decision on the basis of what fits best with the campaign style I have in mind, and what impact trying to enforce that decision would have on actual gameplay. That's the only valid basis for making decisions in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned. It's not because they happen to be some arbitrary rules gods in some arbitrary cubicles in some arbitrary office building in some arbitrary city in North America.

Unless and until control of D&D passes into the hands of a duly authorised body of the UNITED NATIONS, with a mandate under international law to enforce sanctions on offending parties, I'll continue to hold this opinion.

 

[IceBear]

BTW - 99% of the time I do make my own decisions.

However, I am on this board to get better insight into the rules. So, if I come across a thread (like say Does Mind Blank protect against True Strike) where both sides have valid arguments and I'm torn as to which one I should adopt in my game, the most offical one would be the one I would choose. And to me the most offical one is one advocated by someone who is in the know at WotC, or someone that has shown that he has a good understanding of the rules. I picked Caliban's name in this thread because it appeared that you guys were attacking him, but it could as easily have been dcollins or even Karinsdad (God...I hope he doesn't see that )

Anyway, I'm not a mindless toadie by any stretch of the imagination - sorry if I gave that impression

BTW - this was one topic that I decided long ago on my own without Caliban or The Sage. That they both agree with me just assures me that I'm on the same wavelength as someone else who knows the rules.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

[Humor Mode]

This thread is in danger of losing it's sense of humor, therefore I have not included the end tag for Humor Mode.

Consider yourselves to all be in a good mood and able to laugh at yourselves and with others until otherwise notified.

That is all.

-- Adieu

 

[Corwin]

hong addresses the reasoning nicely. Well, maybe not "nicely", but well. Hehe.

That's the whole point. Think for yourself. The fact is, Icebear (who I largely enjoy reading on this forum) listed the people who he considers when ruling on something. He was the one who implied that he is weak-willed and needs the advice of others. Not me. And it is more than likely that he really doesn't. At least I hope so. But if he is going to say it, I get to reply to it.

And I think Ice bear is good at defending his own points.

 

[Caliban]

Screw Sean, Monte and Jonathan, then.

Note that I happen to agree with them that shields should be treated as worn armour in this case. However, I'm making that decision on the basis of what fits best with the campaign style I have in mind, and what impact trying to enforce that decision would have on actual gameplay. That's the only valid basis for making decisions in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned. It's not because they happen to be some arbitrary rules gods in some arbitrary cubicles in some arbitrary office building in some arbitrary city in North America.

Unless and until control of D&D passes into the hands of a duly authorised body of the UNITED NATIONS, with a mandate under international law to enforce sanctions on offending parties, I'll continue to hold this opinion.

Err... Sure, Ok. Whatever.

Look, I 'm all for a DM being in control of the conditions and rules of his own campaign. I use my own set of house rules for my campaign. However, this board was set up specifically to discuss the rules in the PHB, as they were intended to work.

Since you don't care about what the intent of the rules are, or what they actually say, why even post on this message board then? Seriously, if the only rules that matter are the ones you decide that matter, why are you posting on the Rules Board and getting upset when people quote the rules to you?

It just sounds like you would be happier on the House Rules Board. That way no one will be annoying you with the actual rules, or statements about the game designers intent.

 

[Corwin]

Artoomis, I agree. I have been flappin' along and not getting dour, personally, anyway. I hope that goes for evreyone else.

I will follow suit and add this in preparation for any further comments as well:

[humor mode]...

Sheesh. I can't even post without two other posts slipping in. You guys are fast.

BTW - this was one topic that I decided long ago on my own without Caliban or The Sage. That they both agree with me just assures me that I'm on the same wavelength as someone else who knows the rules.

That is what I like to hear. Much better point of view, IMO. I have no qualms with people taking in all the info and ruling one way or the other. I have a problem with puting people on pedestals or taking their opinions without the recommended dosage of salt.