Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 47278" data-attributes="member: 1560">Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound &quot;ranty&quot; here.Um? Huh? Nevermind, jontherev. Feel free not to respond anymore if you don't feel like it. I don't know what your problem is but you obviously didn't read anything I've written this entire thread. Even if your seem to agree with me.Since you seem to want to get into it a little, I will comment on your first post specifically.Yes, you gave the opinion that there would be no AoO. Fine. Great even. But you then start going into disarming them first or using S&amp;F feats to acomplish something not related to the question at hand. My premise was simply taking an off-hand unarmed attack while armed in the primary hand. I was quite clear about that. When you started to stray, I made an effort to keep the thread on track. I did so with multiple caveats about not trying to upset anyone or pick on anyone. You took offense anyway. Go figure.Then there is this comment:&quot;If you know the rules so damn well, why do you need us to find the rule that I found in less than 1 minute off the SRD that proves you don't get an AoO.&quot;And I argue that, though the rules seem to imply what you and I believe, it is not sound and clear. That is precisely why I posted it here. If it was so obvious, why are there conflicting opinions? There seem to be two sides to this and both make good points. Yet you are sure the SRD proves it. If that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered to mention it in the first place.Have a nice day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 47278, member: 1560"] [b]Re: Re: OK, I really don't want to sound "ranty" here.[/b] Um? Huh? Nevermind, jontherev. Feel free not to respond anymore if you don't feel like it. I don't know what your problem is but you obviously didn't read anything I've written this entire thread. Even if your seem to agree with me. Since you seem to want to get into it a little, I will comment on your first post specifically. Yes, you gave the opinion that there would be [b]no[/b] AoO. Fine. Great even. But you then start going into disarming them first or using S&F feats to acomplish something not related to the question at hand. My premise was simply taking an off-hand unarmed attack while armed in the primary hand. I was quite clear about that. When you started to stray, I made an effort to keep the thread on track. I did so with multiple caveats about not trying to upset anyone or pick on anyone. You took offense anyway. Go figure. Then there is this comment: "If you know the rules so damn well, why do you need us to find the rule that I found in less than 1 minute off the SRD that proves you don't get an AoO." And I argue that, though the rules seem to [i]imply[/i] what you and I believe, it is not sound and clear. That is precisely why I posted it here. If it was so obvious, why are there conflicting opinions? There seem to be two sides to this and both make good points. Yet you are sure the SRD proves it. If that [i]were[/i] the case, I wouldn't have bothered to mention it in the first place. Have a nice day. [/QUOTE]

Verification