Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 396497" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.</blockquote>

Verification