What are the biggest rules debates?

[Pinotage]

If you are flanking only when you receive a flanking bonus, then you are only flanking at the moment when you make an attack. Therefore no two people can be flanking at the same time, right?

It's not such a silly argument, really.

I'm not sure I'm following your statements. The text says that you get a flanking bonus when:

a) You're making a melee attack
b) You have an opponent on the opposite border or corner friendly to you or an ally

What I was asking was that presumably you would only get a flanking bonus while you were flanking. If the conditons for a flanking bonus are as above, then doesn't it follow that if you only get that bonus for flanking, then those conditions must be met in order to flank as well? Don't those conditions form a subset of what's required to flank?

Looking at it this way, I can see that there may be an argument that you can flank without getting a flanking bonus, but I'm not sure how.

Pinotage

 

[The Souljourner]

One of the biggest rules debates I've seen (besides ones that have a clear right answer and some people just don't want to accept it) - Do spells like polymorph and derivatives thereof (such as a druid's wildshape) count as "magical effects that increase size" and thus not stack with spells like Animal Growth, Righteous Might, etc. which say "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."

My view is that size altering spells are only those spells which say "you increase in size by one category" or something to that effect. Spells which turn you into a normal sized something else are in a different category, since it's not increasing your size, it's just setting you to size x, which may or may not be bigger than what you were before. Other people say "is it a magical effect? Is your size bigger after you are effected by it? Then the magical effect increased your size." While I can totally understand that logic, I don't believe that was the intention of the designers, especially because they didn't put the size altering restriction in polymorph etc.

-The Souljourner

 

[Infiniti2000]

Some people assert that you can flank, but not be eligible for a flanking bonus. I think it is a pretty silly argument, but others disagree,

I agree it's silly because it creates a conflict in the rules. When you flank, you get a flanking bonus per the glossary. However, you don't get the flanking bonus unless you attack with a melee weapon. So, you can't be flanking with a ranged weapon because you don't get the bonus. You cannot be considered flanking and not the get the bonus without a conflict in the rules if you use all the rules available. You can't ignore some of the rules and you can't take one rule out of context and wave away the conflict it creates.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What I was asking was that presumably you would only get a flanking bonus while you were flanking. If the conditons for a flanking bonus are as above, then doesn't it follow that if you only get that bonus for flanking, then those conditions must be met in order to flank as well? Don't those conditions form a subset of what's required to flank?

The problem is that the rules no longer state that as a requirement for flanking. In fact, when they go on to describe how to determine whether or not something is flanking (the "line test"), the words "melee" and "threaten" never come up.

Along a similar line, here's a question for you. When a creature with barbarian levels is raging, he gains +4 Strength, +4 Constitution, a +2 bonus to Will saves, and a -2 penalty to AC. Undead have no Constitution score. Therefore, an undead barbarian does not gain a bonus to his Constitution score. (Alternatively, he's got a bonus to his Con score but cannot benefit from it - the situation is unchanged.)

Given that an undead barbarian can enter into a rage, doesn't your argument mean that because he does not gain all the benefits of his condition means he doesn't have that condition to begin with?

 

[dcollins]

- Only if he is dim-witted.
- (a) very new, or (b) a real dim bulb.

Thanks so much for calling some of my best friends "dim-witted" and "a real dim bulb". Much appreciated.

 

[Storm Raven]

Thanks so much for calling some of my best friends "dim-witted" and "a real dim bulb". Much appreciated.

I only called him that if he is a casual gamer who doesn't understand these sorts of things. If you can't understand basic concepts like this you are either very new to the game, or not very smart. I leave it up to you to classify your friend accordingly.

 

[Merlion]

1) Class balance in general

2) Is "divine" magic less powerful/useful than "arcane" magic? and/or are Clerics inferior spellcasters to Wizards? Are they suffciently inferior to compensate for their other advantages?

3) Is the Cleric overpowered?

4) Is the Druid overpowered?

5) Are Warrior types less powerful/useful than spellcasters? Or vice versa?

6) Various polymorph and Wildshape issues

7) the Sorcerer (is the sorcerer underpowered, should the sorcerer exist at all, is it suffciently different from the Wizard)

8) Armor Class and/or Damage Reduction (should things like armor that dont realisticly keep you from being hit, but rather reduce or eliminate damage add to AC? Why do characters get inherent attack bonuses but no inherent defense bonuses? etc)

9) Hit points. What do they represent? Are they too abstract?

10) should some of the existing base classes be base classes or prestige classes? (usualy this involves some combination of Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Druid and Barbarian). Should we have lots of specific core classes, or a few very basic ones?

11) What is a "Ranger" and/or what should a "Ranger" be? Same for the paladin.

12) What is "lawful" and what is "chaotic"?



these are just a few that I have frequently participated in and found cropping up

 

[dcollins]

I only called him that if he is a casual gamer who doesn't understand these sorts of things. If you can't understand basic concepts like this you are either very new to the game, or not very smart. I leave it up to you to classify your friend accordingly.

My fiance (for example) is is both quite smart, and played for over year, and is a casual gamer. I expect an apology from you.

 

[reveal]

My fiance is is both quite smart, and played for over year, and is a casual gamer. I expect an apology.

Good luck with that. (Getting the apology, I mean)

 

[Storm Raven]

My fiance (for example) is is both quite smart, and played for over year, and is a casual gamer. I expect an apology from you.

If she cannot understand simple concepts like "what is a threatened area" or "what is a move or double move", then she is either not a casual gamer or not very smart. These are very simple concepts that can be explained in a single sentence, trying to argue that someone of even average intelligence could be unable to grasp them just doesn't wash. I suppose that such a person might just be very lazy and inconsiderate, but that's not really a ringing endorsement of her character.