What are the biggest rules debates?

[Joshua Randall]

What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

Sorry -- it had to be said.

 

[Storm Raven]

What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

Sorry -- it had to be said.

Don't be sorry. It's a better and more productive debate than most of the ones that crop up in threads like these.

 

[reveal]

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.

You really are an ass, you know that? You've just insulted his fiance and I doubt you even see you did anything wrong.

 

[Merlion]

I'm sure he doesnt. He's the type who believes if your insulted by insults, its your own fault for having feelings. I've put him on ignore, and reported two of his posts on this thread (not that its likely to do much good since he didnt mention politics or religion).


Since I dont want to be banned myself, I'm posting no more about it.

 

[Storm Raven]

You really are an ass, you know that? You've just insulted his fiance and I doubt you even see you did anything wrong.

I leave it up to him to decide which category his fiance falls into. I'm inclined to think his assessment of her as being a "casual gamer" is incorrect - and that she's less experienced than he is letting on. Otherwise, she's either not as smart as he thinks, or too lazy and rude to learn the rules of the game. Which one is correct is not something I can assess, but someone who has not been able to get something as simple as "what is a threatened area" pretty much has to fall into one of those categories. I didn't say his fiance wasn't able to grasp the concept, he did. I'm merely assessing the implications of that fact.

 

[reveal]

I'm sure he doesnt. He's the type who believes if your insulted by insults, its your own fault for having feelings. I've put him on ignore, and reported two of his posts on this thread (not that its likely to do much good since he didnt mention politics or religion).


Since I dont want to be banned myself, I'm posting no more about it.

What upsets me most is that he is an attorney, at least it says so in his profile. I work for a law firm and have met many nice attorneys but I've also met some attorneys that are jerks. It's the latter type that people remember and it gives all lawyers a bad name.

 

[Merlion]

Not to mention doing the same for gamers and fantasy fans.

 

[reveal]

I leave it up to him to decide which category his fiance falls into. I'm inclined to think his assessment of her as being a "casual gamer" is incorrect - and that she's less experienced than he is letting on. Otherwise, she's either not as smart as he thinks, or too lazy and rude to learn the rules of the game. Which one is correct is not something I can assess, but someone who has not been able to get something as simple as "what is a threatened area" pretty much has to fall into one of those categories. I didn't say his fiance wasn't able to grasp the concept, he did. I'm merely assessing the implications of that fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Pinotage]

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.

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?

As mentioned I think I can see where the whole issue comes from. It's clear that you can only get a flanking bonus if you're flanking (it's a flanking bonus after all), and that you get a flanking bonus if you're attacking with a melee weapon and have an ally on an opposite border or corner. However, it's not stated whether you can actually flank and not get the flanking bonus. Yes, I think I understand where the opposite view is coming from, although I don't think that was the intent. Then again, people keep arguing against intent again, but I was just trying to understand this, not argue it, so I'm content now!

I follow the barbarian argument in relation to the flanking one, although, again, I don't think that was the intent. It was certainly spelled out in 3e to work one way, and it's unlikely to radically change to 3.5e, so I'll stick with the intent for now.

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It was certainly spelled out in 3e to work one way, and it's unlikely to radically change to 3.5e, so I'll stick with the intent for now.

And that's really the point. I think they made the change in 3.5 to account for several points of oddness that arise with the 3.0 version of flanking (like: creatures with the Hive Mind special quality being unflankable rather thank just difficult to flank, unarmed bar-brawlers being unable to Sneak Attack at all, etc.)

Along with the changes to fix those situations, however, they [most likely] accidentally allowed other situations through the door.