Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6184308" data-attributes="member: 4937">Folks, the question of whether it works or not is irrelevant.&nbsp; The whole complex rules discussion we've been side trekked on is irrelevant.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm perfectly willing to take it for granted that the particular build in question works as stated.&nbsp; Even if I wasn't, I'd be perfectly willing to granted that it works for the purposes of the conversation because it is entirely a red herring.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you go back and read this thread before it got derailed by Cyclone_Joker, and you evaluate his argument this whole 10 page derailment got started because Cyclone_Joker wrote a post filled with assumptions about how you should play and then threw (ironicly) a 'I have the one true way to play post' in Croathian's face when Croathian asserted that in practice Wizards weren't all powerful.&nbsp;&nbsp; This whole thread boils down to Cyclone_Joker essentially replying, &quot;Well, Pun-Pun, so there!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Debating rules with him is just feeding the troll IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp; Who cares.&nbsp;&nbsp; In practice do we really have all these variants, optional rules, features, and splatbooks in play anyway?&nbsp;&nbsp; And even if we do, in practice are we really going to play whatever Pun-Pun lite build Cyclone_Joker is using as an example or anything like it?&nbsp; Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that unless your wizard is invincible, you are stupid?&nbsp;&nbsp; Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that because wizards are invincible it's a terrible idea to play with the Tumble rules?&nbsp;&nbsp; Go read post #23 again that started this whole train wreck, and ask yourself, &quot;Are any of the assumptions of that post operative in the campaign I'm playing or would want to play in?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And if the answer is, &quot;No.&quot;, then who really cares whether some build exists that does broken stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp; I mean, really, why are we even in this debate with a rules lawyer?&nbsp;&nbsp; How long have you been DMing that you can't recognize this gambit for what it is?This thread is equivalent of that session where, instead of playing, you spend 3 hours arguing rules minutia because you got a player that gets the thrill of winning whenever he can argue over rules minutia.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6184308, member: 4937"] Folks, the question of whether it works or not is irrelevant. The whole complex rules discussion we've been side trekked on is irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to take it for granted that the particular build in question works as stated. Even if I wasn't, I'd be perfectly willing to granted that it works for the purposes of the conversation because it is entirely a red herring. If you go back and read this thread before it got derailed by Cyclone_Joker, and you evaluate his argument this whole 10 page derailment got started because Cyclone_Joker wrote a post filled with assumptions about how you should play and then threw (ironicly) a 'I have the one true way to play post' in Croathian's face when Croathian asserted that in practice Wizards weren't all powerful. This whole thread boils down to Cyclone_Joker essentially replying, "Well, Pun-Pun, so there!" Debating rules with him is just feeding the troll IMO. Who cares. In practice do we really have all these variants, optional rules, features, and splatbooks in play anyway? And even if we do, in practice are we really going to play whatever Pun-Pun lite build Cyclone_Joker is using as an example or anything like it? Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that unless your wizard is invincible, you are stupid? Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that because wizards are invincible it's a terrible idea to play with the Tumble rules? Go read post #23 again that started this whole train wreck, and ask yourself, "Are any of the assumptions of that post operative in the campaign I'm playing or would want to play in?" And if the answer is, "No.", then who really cares whether some build exists that does broken stuff. I mean, really, why are we even in this debate with a rules lawyer? How long have you been DMing that you can't recognize this gambit for what it is? This thread is equivalent of that session where, instead of playing, you spend 3 hours arguing rules minutia because you got a player that gets the thrill of winning whenever he can argue over rules minutia. [/QUOTE]

Verification