Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RigaMortus" data-source="post: 1640011" data-attributes="member: 1077">If my post was so pointless, why did you respond?&nbsp; And as far as &quot;trolling&quot; goes...&nbsp; I'm &quot;trolling&quot; no more than you are...How is it not a house rule?&nbsp; You are clearly basing your &quot;interpretation&quot; off of old 3.0 rules, not 3.5.&nbsp; No where, as it is written in the 3.5 rules, does it suggest that TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot don't stack.&nbsp; It does in 3.0, but not 3.5.&nbsp; There is a also a difference between how the &quot;3.5 mechanics are supposed to work&quot; and how they actually DO work.&nbsp; One is written in the rule book, the other is being made up by you...I fail to see how I am not correct when I am simply using the rules as given to me in the PHB.&nbsp; You, on the other hand, are coming up with new rules (restrictions actually) based on (a) old 3.0 rulings and (b) how you wish/hope/assume the rules work.&nbsp; In 3.5, the rules as written do not support your way of thinking in the terms of TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot.&nbsp; There is nothing written to dispute that they DON'T work, so therefore, they DO.It really is a lot simplier than you are making it out to be.&nbsp; If the rules (mechanics) do not DISALLOW it, then it is quite simply allowed.&nbsp; When 3.0 first came out, the designers would frequently mention that D&amp;D 3E was a game of &quot;options, not restrictions&quot;.See, there ya go...&nbsp; You are basing your &quot;interpretation&quot; on 3.0 rules.&nbsp; I know, I know, there is more, so allow me to finish your quote...Says you.&nbsp; How do you know that is the reason the XBow wording was changed based on the removal of ambidexterity?&nbsp; Where is this officially stated?&nbsp; Hey, maybe it is stated somewhere and I just put my foot in my mouth, I'd really like to see it though.Even if this is the case, Rapid Shot's wording not changing has nothing to do with if should or shouldn't stack with TWF or Flurry.&nbsp; Nothing what so ever.&nbsp; The wording didn't change because it was assumed by the writers that people could understand how it works by the original wording.&nbsp; If it ain't broken, don't fix it.I'm not too familiar with Circle Kick.&nbsp; What does it do?&nbsp; What are you claiming it does not stack with?&nbsp; Is this 3.0 or 3.5?The reason Knockdown and Cleave don't stack is because you need to &quot;drop&quot; someone for Cleave to work.&nbsp; Knockdown doesn't &quot;drop&quot; your opponent or kill them, it makes them fall prone.&nbsp; There is no defined term for &quot;dropping&quot; someone in D&amp;D.&nbsp; There is for killing them and for knocking them prone (which is what Knockdown does).&nbsp; This has been clarified in the FAQ I believe.&nbsp; What exactly it means to &quot;drop&quot; someone with Cleave.&nbsp; Anyway, they are two seperate feats (Knockdown and Cleave) that don't stack because they don't have any effects that relates to one another.&nbsp; That is like saying, Maximize Spell doesn't &quot;stack&quot; with Run...&nbsp; huh?&nbsp; Exactly...&nbsp; Oh yeah, not to mention Knockdown is 3.0.&nbsp; If you ran a 3.5 game, and used 3.5 rules, you'd have a lot less headaches, trust me.&nbsp; Our group is better off with 3.5.&nbsp; And please don't take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to MAKE you use 3.5 rules, I am simply trying to show you how they are better than 3.0 rules in most cases.&nbsp; They are better to base interpretations off of as well.&nbsp; I personally try to forget the 3.0 rules as I often get them confused with 3.5 rules.I am not asking you to budge, play the way you want.&nbsp; I am just agreeing with the other people that said how you are playing it is basically a house rule.&nbsp; How is my &quot;arguing&quot; (though I am not arguing with anyone, I am trying to have a civil debate here) about it going to waste both our time?&nbsp; If anything, I am simply wasting my time (which I am alright with).&nbsp; If you choose to read and respond to me, you are wasting your own time.&nbsp; Don't pin that one on me&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> I noticed you didn't adress my other questions.&nbsp; Perhaps you overlooked them or simply didn't have an answer for me.&nbsp; So I'll ask again, as I am curious to how you would rule them:If a character had a Spiked Chain and the Cleave feat, would you allow them to use their Cleave attempt to Trip someone? By the rules, this is allowed, even though it doesn't say (under Cleave or Trip) that you can &quot;combine&quot; these feats/tactics.If someone has Cleave and Greater Cleave, do you allow them to take advantage of both? If I kill someone, can I Cleave AND Great Cleave the same opponent? By the rules I beleive this is allowed (someone correct me if I am wrong).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RigaMortus, post: 1640011, member: 1077"] If my post was so pointless, why did you respond? And as far as "trolling" goes... I'm "trolling" no more than you are... How is it not a house rule? You are clearly basing your "interpretation" off of old 3.0 rules, not 3.5. No where, as it is written in the 3.5 rules, does it suggest that TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot don't stack. It does in 3.0, but not 3.5. There is a also a difference between how the "3.5 mechanics are supposed to work" and how they actually DO work. One is written in the rule book, the other is being made up by you... I fail to see how I am not correct when I am simply using the rules as given to me in the PHB. You, on the other hand, are coming up with new rules (restrictions actually) based on (a) old 3.0 rulings and (b) how you wish/hope/assume the rules work. In 3.5, the rules as written do not support your way of thinking in the terms of TWF + Flurry + Rapid Shot. There is nothing written to dispute that they DON'T work, so therefore, they DO. It really is a lot simplier than you are making it out to be. If the rules (mechanics) do not DISALLOW it, then it is quite simply allowed. When 3.0 first came out, the designers would frequently mention that D&D 3E was a game of "options, not restrictions". See, there ya go... You are basing your "interpretation" on 3.0 rules. I know, I know, there is more, so allow me to finish your quote... Says you. How do you know that is the reason the XBow wording was changed based on the removal of ambidexterity? Where is this officially stated? Hey, maybe it is stated somewhere and I just put my foot in my mouth, I'd really like to see it though. Even if this is the case, Rapid Shot's wording not changing has nothing to do with if should or shouldn't stack with TWF or Flurry. Nothing what so ever. The wording didn't change because it was assumed by the writers that people could understand how it works by the original wording. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. I'm not too familiar with Circle Kick. What does it do? What are you claiming it does not stack with? Is this 3.0 or 3.5? The reason Knockdown and Cleave don't stack is because you need to "drop" someone for Cleave to work. Knockdown doesn't "drop" your opponent or kill them, it makes them fall prone. There is no defined term for "dropping" someone in D&D. There is for killing them and for knocking them prone (which is what Knockdown does). This has been clarified in the FAQ I believe. What exactly it means to "drop" someone with Cleave. Anyway, they are two seperate feats (Knockdown and Cleave) that don't stack because they don't have any effects that relates to one another. That is like saying, Maximize Spell doesn't "stack" with Run... huh? Exactly... Oh yeah, not to mention Knockdown is 3.0. If you ran a 3.5 game, and used 3.5 rules, you'd have a lot less headaches, trust me. Our group is better off with 3.5. And please don't take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to MAKE you use 3.5 rules, I am simply trying to show you how they are better than 3.0 rules in most cases. They are better to base interpretations off of as well. I personally try to forget the 3.0 rules as I often get them confused with 3.5 rules. I am not asking you to budge, play the way you want. I am just agreeing with the other people that said how you are playing it is basically a house rule. How is my "arguing" (though I am not arguing with anyone, I am trying to have a civil debate here) about it going to waste both our time? If anything, I am simply wasting my time (which I am alright with). If you choose to read and respond to me, you are wasting your own time. Don't pin that one on me :uhoh: I noticed you didn't adress my other questions. Perhaps you overlooked them or simply didn't have an answer for me. So I'll ask again, as I am curious to how you would rule them: If a character had a Spiked Chain and the Cleave feat, would you allow them to use their Cleave attempt to Trip someone? By the rules, this is allowed, even though it doesn't say (under Cleave or Trip) that you can "combine" these feats/tactics. If someone has Cleave and Greater Cleave, do you allow them to take advantage of both? If I kill someone, can I Cleave AND Great Cleave the same opponent? By the rules I beleive this is allowed (someone correct me if I am wrong). [/QUOTE]

Verification