Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 2104298" data-attributes="member: 29014">Wow, some of that was pretty funny.  You are absolutely right that it doesn't say HD and type, but want to know where I got that incorrect information from?  It was you.Jack said:So I quote you and you turn around and lecture me about how you were wrong?  Interesting.This is an implied ad hominem attack that comes at the end of an argument that your attempt to massively twist the rules of simulacrum in order to weaken the spell in one specific application makes you a better DM.  I think that Power Attack gets out of control when you get 2-for-1 with a 2-handed weapon, so I house-ruled it, but I don't try to say that I am right, or that someone who doesn't isn't a "decent DM."  Your strange and bizarre rulings, contrary to the spell's description and apparently created on the fly in order to cover this one particular circumstance, fall apart completely when dealing with human targets, as I showed above.Your twisted "balance" argument holds no real weight.  If I want to power-game, I'll be mass-producing Pit Fiends from Day 1 for the Meteor Swarms.  And there's nothing your strange rules can do against that or anything else except dragons because Wizards didn't give them an unambiguous age category system that you think is ambiguous.So basically, what you are doing here is saying to yourself that you don't like the power of the spell for dragons, so you will try to twist the rules to weaken the spell on duping dragons, with no regard to the actual text on dragons in the SRD, and not caring that this twist won't do anything for other creatures.Anyway, as Pielorhino said, we are cluttering up this thread, and you will refuse to see the rules no matter what anyone says because you have decided that you can rules-lawyer a way that you think is more balanced (and maybe you can do so successfully, but your logic has been exposed in the process as twisted and self-contradictory, so it is obvious by the point you reach your conclusion that it is a rules-lawyering attempt).  There's nothing more that I can say to convince you because even if the person who wrote the spell description were to have a face-to-face chat with you and show you why it doesn't work the way you think it does, you would try to find loopholes in his language to tell him that he is wrong.  So I'm just not going to bother continuing this.  You are fond of saying that discussion on the matter goes in circles, and you are partly right.  I continue to bring up new ideas and persepctives and you go in circles by repeating again and again the mantra that your rules-lawyering defeats all ideas and perspectives unless I can beat it first.And I'm sure that everyone else who was reading this thread isn't bothering to continue reading this discussion, since they have long ago concluded that your arguments are leading us nowhere fast, so nobody really benefits from this.  Hence, I'm not going to answer any more.  It is clear that you want the last word, so by all means take it.  You and the people (if there are any, which I doubt) who agree with you can call it a victory if you want, but I am tired of honestly looking for new evidence and having you write long (unimportant to the main point) diatribes about how specific wording, which I sometimes got from you, was wrong in my post and then say the same thing over and over again (the effect of "I'm right, so assuming I'm right it doesn't matter about those other things.").</blockquote>

Verification