Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 62724" data-attributes="member: 1560">I think of condescention as a form of insult, yes. Saying things like "Try reading the PHB" is condescending and insulting.Also, your constant attempts to dismiss all non-Caliban/Sage rules interpretations as "house rules", like you did mine, is also insulting. Caliming that you were insulted first because I called your POV a presumption is plain silly. On top of that, there is a big difference between you having a presumption and you being presuptuous anyway. So, whatever with that... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But enough of this, let's get back to the good stuff:There are rules that make your "presumption" unclear and muddied, yet you seem to be insistant that there is no room for interpretation? What about the glossary's use of the term shield bonus?What I'm trying to show is the corallation between this point and:If your logic holds, and shields are indeed "Armor", then arrows are "Weapons". There is a mirrored relation here based on your own criteria. So drawing an arrow should be a MEA because it is a melee weapon. If "it is what it is", then it should hold to that and the rules for drawing a weapon should apply. But they don't. Arrows are indeed improvised weapons. This is a given. Yet, they have some special ability to be allowed to be drawn as a free action? So just because something is on the same equipment list and functions almost identically in every way, does not mean they behave identically. If arrows can be drawn as a free action to stab something, then perhaps shields don't restrict a monk's abilities. I see these things as similar trains of thought.I would like to also reitterate that I agree that monks can't use shields without suffering from a loss of thier abilities. However, I do so more for game balance reasons, not because I thing shields are litterally "Armor". I just don't like when someone (anyone, even you Caliban) gets up on their high-horse and starts matter-of-factly displaying opinions as hard-fast rules and dismissing everyone else's opinions as less that your own.If this stuff is so concrete, why the debate? Why are there well versed pople here disagreeing with you?I want to finish by saying that I am not hurt. I am not offended. I still value your input and enjoy reading your posts and debating you. I don't take stuff here personally (for the most part). I hope you aren't either. I do, however, notice when things are getting picky or heated and will respond in kind if I think it's worth my time. BTW, Artoomis, I would like to see the list of points you have assembled with regards to shields not being armor. If you don't mind. You know, in case there is something you see that I haven't picked up on yet. Thanks.</blockquote>

Verification