Ranger TWF and Drawing Weapons

[Radiating Gnome]

Cougar, I'm sorry --

I quoted your post because it was the most recent one, not because you were the only one or the first one doing it.

And you're also right, I did call him a rules-lawyer. In retrospect, I think I even may have started it.

Maybe I should go do some editing, too

I won't. Better to just fess up to my own stupid double standard (ex-girlfriends of the world, hear me now!) and apologize.

-rg

 

[Cougar]

No problem. I never did retract my apology and I didn't get angry and post those things to make you feel bad, just to call attention to it. Glad we got things resolved. Hope you get the ruling you are after. I am certainly in your corner.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hm... if someone told me that rangers can't draw two weapons in a MEA because they don't have the feat, I'd ask him where he's got that from. If he told me that it's from (insert whatever you want here), I'd tell him that he should not listen to it because the person who originally stated it that way is a rules-lawyer and that he always should wonder what the spirit of the rules is. But if he told me that it is so because it's in the rules and that rangers only fight as if they had the feats but don't have them, I'd call him a rules-lawyer of the worst sort and grab my dice bag.

I just can't understand people who discuss over such minutes, vindicating them because they are the letter of the rules, completely disregarding the spirit of the rules. And calling them rules-lawyers is not names-calling, it's simple truth (if not, tell me what they are).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I just can't understand people who discuss over such minutes, vindicating them because they are the letter of the rules, completely disregarding the spirit of the rules. And calling them rules-lawyers is not names-calling, it's simple truth (if not, tell me what they are).

To me, it's not that surprising.

We hear the quote from time to time that "Magic : The Gathering is a gateway to tabletop roleplaying". That many people "graduate" from M:tG to D&D, for example, with Magic as their introduction to fantasy.

And - correct me if I'm wrong - but M:tG rewards rules-lawyering. The letter of the text on a card is sacred; the spirit is irrelevant. The infinite combos come from putting together several cards in such a way as to exploit loopholes in the letter of the text - just like multi-splatbook feat combos in D&D.

The difference being that a gamebreaking combo is often house-ruled in D&D, but applauded in M:tG.

Is it so startling that people coming to the game through this gateway retain the mindset?

[Disclaimer : I've played very little in the way of CCGs myself, so if I'm misrepresenting the hobby, I apologise.]

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You're being foolish. If the rulebooks say a certain thing then that either is both the letter and the spirit of the rules or the writers screwed up. What you're suggesting is "If anyone says I'm wrong about the rules, they're an idiotic rules lawyer and shouldn't be listened to." While that may have some appeal in the anonymous realm of an internet message board, it would be both arrogant and stupid to do so in real life.

As to the original question, I actually believe that the consensus on the Infinite Monkeys board is correct. There are other ways that the "fights as if they had the feats" restriction applies as well.

A ranger trying to pick locks with their off hand, for instance suffers the normal penalties for performing a skill check with an off hand. (They wouldn't if they had the ambidexterity feat proper because that applies to more than fighting). Granted, drawing weapons is much closer to fighting than making a skill check is but the point is that "light armor" is not the only significant restriction on the ranger's virtual feats. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that drawing a weapon is not included in fighting. I don't think that it's indisputable either but I believe that the restrictive interpretation of "fighting as if" has the best case.

Hm... if someone told me that rangers can't draw two weapons in a MEA because they don't have the feat, I'd ask him where he's got that from. If he told me that it's from (insert whatever you want here), I'd tell him that he should not listen to it because the person who originally stated it that way is a rules-lawyer and that he always should wonder what the spirit of the rules is. But if he told me that it is so because it's in the rules and that rangers only fight as if they had the feats but don't have them, I'd call him a rules-lawyer of the worst sort and grab my dice bag.

I just can't understand people who discuss over such minutes, vindicating them because they are the letter of the rules, completely disregarding the spirit of the rules. And calling them rules-lawyers is not names-calling, it's simple truth (if not, tell me what they are).

 

[kreynolds]

Question...what is this Infinite Monkeys board?

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Infinite monkeys is a yahoo groups discussion group for RPGA D&D rules and ideas. You can find it at groups.yahoo.com

-rg

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Since when there's an offhand for skill checks?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

You're being foolish. If the rulebooks say a certain thing then that either is both the letter and the spirit of the rules or the writers screwed up. What you're suggesting is "If anyone says I'm wrong about the rules, they're an idiotic rules lawyer and shouldn't be listened to." While that may have some appeal in the anonymous realm of an internet message board, it would be both arrogant and stupid to do so in real life.

First off, people who rule to harshly, and explaining that by such a reading of the rules, with complete disregard to the spirit of the rules, is just pedantic. It's not that it's unbalancing: is it really that bad that the ranger can draw two weapons with one MEA, even though he doesnt' have the feats themselves, but only virtual versions? If it is, I might enter discussions about such minutes as in that example.

Second, I never said that they're idiotic, and I never said that they're rules-lawyers because they have different opinions than me. As I said, it's that pedantry I can't stand.

And calling me stupid and arrogant won't help your argument a bit. Actually, I always perceived pedantic persons as arrogant.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It's obvious that you have little patience for people who disagree with you on such issues whether or not they back their arguments up with reasons. To quote from your original post,
"I'd tell him that he should not listen to it because the person who originally stated it that way is a rules-lawyer" without addressing the arguments at all.
"I'd call him a rules-lawyer of the worst sort and grab my dice bag." again demonstrating a refusal to discuss opinions differing from your own and resorting to ad-homonem attacks rather than logical reasoning.
"And calling them rules-lawyers is not names-calling, it's simple truth" And apparently, an excuse for not listening to someone, and picking up your dice bag (whether to leave or hit them over the head with it isn't clear from your original post).

Would it be rules lawyering to insist that Rangers can't use their virtual ambidexterity and TWF on double weapons? To make skill checks with their off hands? How about in heavy armor? The difference between asking what the rules say in these issues and asking what it says WRT drawing two weapons as an MEA is a matter of degree not a matter of kind.

I would be far more disturbed by a player who said "You shouldn't listen to that, it's just rules lawyering--rules lawyering of the worst kind!" and then got up in a huff to leave the table or hit me over the head with his dice bag than by a DM who insisted on the distinction between fighting with two weapons and drawing them. One may well be pedantic and insignificant (although that pedantic insignificance offers players good reason to actually spend feats to get ambi/TWF instead of taking a level of ranger). The other is immature overreaction.

First off, people who rule to harshly, and explaining that by such a reading of the rules, with complete disregard to the spirit of the rules, is just pedantic. It's not that it's unbalancing: is it really that bad that the ranger can draw two weapons with one MEA, even though he doesnt' have the feats themselves, but only virtual versions? If it is, I might enter discussions about such minutes as in that example.

Second, I never said that they're idiotic, and I never said that they're rules-lawyers because they have different opinions than me. As I said, it's that pedantry I can't stand.

And calling me stupid and arrogant won't help your argument a bit. Actually, I always perceived pedantic persons as arrogant.