Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4739579" data-attributes="member: 44797">Huh?&nbsp; Nobody has been smug; they're winning the argument by quoting rules.&nbsp; If you think they're being smug, by all means, flag the posts to a moderator.&nbsp; Hell, if you think mine is smug, flag it too.&nbsp; I think everyone has been incredibly patient and civil considering how badly you want to misinterpret the rules.Hmm.&nbsp; Perhaps you think people saying &quot;you are misinterpreting the rules&quot; is uncivil.&nbsp; That would seem to me to be like saying, &quot;If you tell me the sky is blue, that's smug.&quot;&nbsp; But if the moderators agree with you, I'm willing to play by their rules (ha ha, get it?!?!).&nbsp; So flag these bad posts you've encountered.This makes no sense.&nbsp; First of all, let me just say that I have worn armor and have been prone, and my ability to ward off blows, crawl away, stand up and run, and so on, is precisely the definition of &quot;HAS dexterity bonus.&quot;&nbsp; It might also be the definition of &quot;circumstance penalty&quot; but that's completely different and does not mean I can't react.&nbsp; Because I can move &amp; react, no single attacker is going to get a chance to work a weapon into an abnormally advantageous position.&nbsp; I'll fight it.Now, of course, if multiple people gang up on me, the story is different.&nbsp; But that's because now we're talking about flanking bonuses and such.&nbsp; It's much harder for me to stop villain1 from poking me right in the heart when villain2 is slashing at my jugular.Having said all that, there is a &quot;second of all.&quot;&nbsp; And that is, second of all, let's say your point is right.&nbsp; Let's say that if we were to don chain shirts and lie down, we real humans would suddenly be unable to defend ourselves.&nbsp; OK?&nbsp; I'm going along with you so far, right?&nbsp; Here's the thing: even if that is how it worked in reality, it isn't how the rules are written.&nbsp; This isn't even ambiguous.&nbsp; The rules hinge on being denied a Dex bonus, and the rules provide specific states that deny a Dex bonus.&nbsp; That's it.So if you're arguing that your way is more realistic, that's fine, but that still doesn't make the rules go in your favor.&nbsp; It just means the rules don't work the way you think they should, so you need a house rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4739579, member: 44797"] Huh? Nobody has been smug; they're winning the argument by quoting rules. If you think they're being smug, by all means, flag the posts to a moderator. Hell, if you think mine is smug, flag it too. I think everyone has been incredibly patient and civil considering how badly you want to misinterpret the rules. Hmm. Perhaps you think people saying "you are misinterpreting the rules" is uncivil. That would seem to me to be like saying, "If you tell me the sky is blue, that's smug." But if the moderators agree with you, I'm willing to play by their rules (ha ha, get it?!?!). So flag these bad posts you've encountered. This makes no sense. First of all, let me just say that I [i]have[/i] worn armor and [i]have[/i] been prone, and my ability to ward off blows, crawl away, stand up and run, and so on, is precisely the definition of "HAS dexterity bonus." It might [i]also[/i] be the definition of "circumstance penalty" but that's completely different and does not mean I can't react. Because I [i]can[/i] move & react, no single attacker is going to get a chance to work a weapon into an abnormally advantageous position. I'll fight it. Now, of course, if multiple people gang up on me, the story is different. But that's because now we're talking about flanking bonuses and such. It's much harder for me to stop villain1 from poking me right in the heart when villain2 is slashing at my jugular. Having said all that, there is a "second of all." And that is, second of all, let's say your point is right. Let's say that if we were to don chain shirts and lie down, we real humans would suddenly be unable to defend ourselves. OK? I'm going along with you so far, right? Here's the thing: even if that is how it worked in reality, [i]it isn't how the rules are written.[/i] This isn't even ambiguous. The rules hinge on being denied a Dex bonus, and the rules provide specific states that deny a Dex bonus. That's it. So if you're arguing that your way is more realistic, that's fine, but that still doesn't make the rules go in your favor. It just means the rules don't work the way you think they should, so you need a house rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification