D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

+1

I'm glad you've finally agreed that there's room for interpretation on this.

 

[Bolares]

I'm glad you've finally agreed that there's room for interpretation on this.

And the fighting restarts in 3, 2, 1... hahahah

 

[Noctem]

I'm glad you've finally agreed that there's room for interpretation on this.

I've never said there wasn't. I said that the interpretations forwarded by multiple people in this thread, read houserules, are yours and yours alone. No one here is interested in discussing houserules clearly. You're all claiming to be following the rules of the game. Agreeing that houseruling is legal isn't the same as agreeing that your interpretation is correct or that it's how the game is meant to be played. That's why I've been telling you people to go ask questions from the dev who has been chosen to answer the public's questions. That way you can see if your interpretation is correct or not. But who am I kidding, you people aren't interested in doing that! That would mean you could be wrong (gasp!) and have to admit you weren't correct (shock and awe!) in a public forum (gulp!) on the internet (omg!). @_@

You're all perfectly happy claiming you know better than the devs

 

[Noctem]

And the fighting restarts in 3, 2, 1... hahahah

no fighting needed. He can assume whatever he wants ;0

 

[Bolares]

I've never said there wasn't. I said that the interpretations forwarded by multiple people in this thread, read houserules, are yours and yours alone. No one here is interested in discussing houserules clearly. You're all claiming to be following the rules of the game. Agreeing that houseruling is legal isn't the same as agreeing that your interpretation is correct or that it's how the game is meant to be played. That's why I've been telling you people to go ask questions from the dev who has been chosen to answer the public's questions. That way you can see if your interpretation is correct or not. But who am I kidding, you people aren't interested in doing that! That would mean you could be wrong (gasp!) and have to admit you weren't correct (shock and awe!) in a public forum (gulp!) on the internet (omg!). @_@

You're all perfectly happy claiming you know better than the devs

If that's what you took from my posts you didn't get me, at all. You say their opinion is houseruling, I say its an fair interpretation of broad rules (for the most part). I don't know if you can see that, but when you state that your view of things are the correct ones and dinish other people's views, its possible that you end up appearing to be petulant and obnocious. Look, I'm not saying you are that, its not in me to put labels on people, but I would say you could put your toughts in a more humble way, it would ease the acceptance of your view for people who disagree with you.

I really wish I do not sound arrogant or offensive in this post.

 

[Noctem]

If that's what you took from my posts you didn't get me, at all. You say their opinion is houseruling, I say its an fair interpretation of broad rules (for the most part). I don't know if you can see that, but when you state that your view of things are the correct ones and dinish other people's views, its possible that you end up appearing to be petulant and obnocious. Look, I'm not saying you are that, its not in me to put labels on people, but I would say you could put your toughts in a more humble way, it would ease the acceptance of your view for people who disagree with you.

I really wish I do not sound arrogant or offensive in this post.

Oh that wasn't directed to you. That was in response to the guy I quoted You haven't posted anything I disagree with in this thread Bolares. You know the rules, you've quoted them, you've explained your posts well and as far as I can tell you're a great person.

However, I've got no patience for certain other posters in this thread. And although you might not like it, that's just the way it is. I've spent hours of my time and they can't even be bothered to go ask questions from the people who designed the edition. They are happy continuing to spew their nonsense. So for people like that, I will be as direct and brash as I am being and that'll be that. Don't take it personally, it's not.

 

[Bolares]

Oh that wasn't directed to you. That was in response to the guy I quoted You haven't posted anything I disagree with in this thread Bolares. You know the rules, you've quoted them, you've explained your posts well and as far as I can tell you're a great person.

However, I've got no patience for certain other posters in this thread. And although you might not like it, that's just the way it is. I've spent hours of my time and they can't even be bothered to go ask questions from the people who designed the edition. They are happy continuing to spew their nonsense. So for people like that, I will be as direct and brash as I am being and that'll be that. Don't take it personally, it's not.

Yeah, you didn't get me, hahah. I know your more sarcastic posts are not directed at me. I'm just saying that maybe the way you present your opinion is just as important as the content of said opinion. Not that I'm assuming that I do this tight, but if you observe it with care you and I have basically the same opinion on this issues. But I seem to have more success in showing them my point of view, because I don't assure them that their point of view is wrong and that they are ignorant of the rules. If this discussion is only getting you frustrated and making you brash, I don't see why continuing posting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh that wasn't directed to you. That was in response to the guy I quoted You haven't posted anything I disagree with in this thread Bolares. You know the rules, you've quoted them, you've explained your posts well and as far as I can tell you're a great person.

However, I've got no patience for certain other posters in this thread. And although you might not like it, that's just the way it is. I've spent hours of my time and they can't even be bothered to go ask questions from the people who designed the edition. They are happy continuing to spew their nonsense. So for people like that, I will be as direct and brash as I am being and that'll be that. Don't take it personally, it's not.

You may not have noticed, but we don't disagree either -- at least, I will generally rule this the same way that you do. I, however, recognize that I'm not infallible, and also recognize that there's considerable slop in there that would easily allow a different ruling to be as justifiable as yours. I'm also not on a massive ego trip that requires me to insist that others ask my questions as if they address their points, nor am I overly concerned that I must be acknowledged as the one who's right. I like that there's slop, and enjoy the mental exercise of examining the various possible interpretations so that when I pick one, I've at least fully explored the space instead of locking down and becoming dogmatic.

Also, I most emphatically do not agree with you because I found you at all persuasive in your arguments, which are tedious, repetitive, and unenlightened by any opinion other than your own.

 

[Noctem]

Yeah, you didn't get me, hahah. I know your more sarcastic posts are not directed at me. I'm just saying that maybe the way you present your opinion is just as important as the content of said opinion. Not that I'm assuming that I do this tight, but if you observe it with care you and I have basically the same opinion on this issues. But I seem to have more success in showing them my point of view, because I don't assure them that their point of view is wrong and that they are ignorant of the rules. If this discussion is only getting you frustrated and making you brash, I don't see why continuing posting.

Ok here's the thing. I don't care how my posts make me look when it comes to most people. I just simply don't care. You and I seem to have the same opinions but I think it's simply a difference in caring about what others think of us. It's a difference in personality perhaps. What I do care about on the other hand is that if 3 pages ago someone linked the rules quote for something, spending time and effort to explain that rule, and now some bloke makes a claim that clearly goes against that rules quote; that they be immediately reminded about the rules quote and that it be respected. I've noticed that most of the people who opine don't seem to care about actually reading the rules for this game and are more than comfortable spewing their interpretations as rules mantra. When someone comes asking about the rules, your houserule is the last thing you should be answering with imo unless the question has been answered and/or you clearly label it as such.

So I work to combat that spread. Arial Black's houserule about instantaneous spells shouldn't be submitted to answer a rules question but here we are. It's been debunked by dev tweet responses, rules quotes and that sort of thing. But he's stubborn. From his houserule, he's now spread it (with the help of others who have bought into his houserule) to include other game elements and how they interact with each other. Even though the duration clearly says it can't be dispelled, now there's talk about some kind of time between attacks that allows you to dispel. Needless to say, time between attacks like they are inventing doesn't exist. There's no such defined time in the rules of the game. But wait! The dictionary says something! Let me be clear, if you need to point to half a definition on a random dictionary website and you use that as the entire basis for your rules argument, you've lost from the get go. Essentially, they are going through the various rules that might cause problems and rewriting them (instantaneous can be dispelled, time between attacks exists, instantaneous = simultaneous, etc..) to fit into the houserule they invented to begin with. Like, it's nonsense and if my calling it out as such gets people to stop and think then that's good enough.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok here's the thing. I don't care how my posts make me look when it comes to most people. I just simply don't care. You and I seem to have the same opinions but I think it's simply a difference in caring about what others think of us. It's a difference in personality perhaps. What I do care about on the other hand is that if 3 pages ago someone linked the rules quote for something, spending time and effort to explain that rule, and now some bloke makes a claim that clearly goes against that rules quote; that they be immediately reminded about the rules quote and that it be respected. I've noticed that most of the people who opine don't seem to care about actually reading the rules for this game and are more than comfortable spewing their interpretations as rules mantra. When someone comes asking about the rules, your houserule is the last thing you should be answering with imo unless the question has been answered and/or you clearly label it as such.

So I work to combat that spread. Arial Black's houserule about instantaneous spells shouldn't be submitted to answer a rules question but here we are. It's been debunked by dev tweet responses, rules quotes and that sort of thing. But he's stubborn. From his houserule, he's now spread it (with the help of others who have bought into his houserule) to include other game elements and how they interact with each other. Even though the duration clearly says it can't be dispelled, now there's talk about some kind of time between attacks that allows you to dispel. Needless to say, time between attacks like they are inventing doesn't exist. There's no such defined time in the rules of the game. But wait! The dictionary says something! Let me be clear, if you need to point to half a definition on a random dictionary website and you use that as the entire basis for your rules argument, you've lost from the get go. Essentially, they are going through the various rules that might cause problems and rewriting them (instantaneous can be dispelled, time between attacks exists, instantaneous = simultaneous, etc..) to fit into the houserule they invented to begin with. Like, it's nonsense and if my calling it out as such gets people to stop and think then that's good enough.

Dude, you made a long post earlier in the thread about readied actions that was completely wrong. According to your arguments, any posts made that are negative of you on that matter, no matter how demeaning, should be acceptable because they're doing the good work of combating the spread of wrong rules. YOU have shown you did not read or properly interpret (or maybe both) the rules at least once in this thread. You presented a houserule, and have yet to climb down from it or acknowledge it was wrong, but, yet, you're here insisting that that means you have the moral obligation to point it out (nastily, most often) to get them to stop being wrong.

So, are you going to admit your error re: readied actions, or do I need to continue mocking you for it until you do because that's the right thing to do?