Drezdock's page

I get what every one is saying. I knew it was a bad idea when it started seeping out of the dark corners of my brain, but I guess I was just to angry and frustrated to see past that and to the possibility of ruining the fun of other players at the table. That is most definitely something I wouldn't want to do under any circumstances...
I guess I just needed to take a step back, catch my breath, put on my big boy undies, and calm the f*ck down. ;-)

Thank you everyone for taking the time to read and respond. :-)

@awesomness.

While I appreciate the advice / input, the multi-weapon fighting feat does not require natural weapons of any kind.

per the srd: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/multiweapon-fighting-combat
*******************
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
*****************************

However I don't wish to turn this thread into another argument about how multi-weapon works tho. I accept that some read the rules one way, while others see it another.

@pixie

By raw do you have to attack with a weapon to be wielding it? As such can you gain the benefits granted from wielding a weapon without attacking with it? If you are wearing bladed boots do you count as wielding them? (Not arguing for extra attacks, merely are they considered wielded when worn) Is "wielding" defined by RAW or do you have to RAI what wielding reasonably means?

Does multi-weapon fighting allow a multi-limbed character to gain an attack with each off hand, or allow aforementioned character to gain an additional attack with each off hand? By RAW nothing explicitly states that a char can make more than one offhand attack... by RAI said character should seem to be able to do so.

By RAW snapleaf is an incredibly cheap item one could use to invoke invisibility and haste forever and ever. RAI it seems obvious it was intended to be a one use kind of item akin to a feather token.

RAW invocation candle (in addition to other benefits) allows char to have an item that casts a spell for several thousand gold pieces cheaper than the material cost for same spell on it's own. RAI price should be adjusted or spell should be removed from item.

What are the penalties of being dead? RAW says nothing specific. RAI is pretty freaking clear!

In each of these I maintain a firm RAI standing. However, I would daresay that most RAW people would agree with the former but RAI the latter.

Yes I am complaining, and yes I am upset. However to dismiss the validity of my argument as a crybaby post is both demeaning and insulting and the sort of thing that caused my to make this post in the first place.

It is not about breaking the game and finding all the loopholes to make my char the biggest baddest best and most broken. It is about consistency. I dont understand how a person can clearly RAI one thing, and then completely disregard RAI on another with the basis of that decision being RAW.

Drezdock wrote:

@Devil

Well as far as more details go, with this current group that ive been playing with the past few years, we all take turns running. One person will run a short term campaign for a few months and when that one is finished another person generally wants to try their hand with an idea they had.
Being a very RAI player and understanding that interpretations differ from person to person whenever I am making a new character and the language gets murky about how one thing works or two things work together, I present what I'm looking at to the dm. Get their interpretation, explain to them what my interpretation is and we both try to support our thesis with the caveat that in the end the GM is always right and in their game, the rules play their way.
However the most recent thing that broke the camels back was for this most recent thing I was interested in playing a Kasatha - Master of many styles. Since master of many styles lose the flurry ability, I thought a decent way to offset it would me to take multi-weapon fighting for what was in effect "a fake flurry". I am of the RAI camp that multiple hands = multiple attacks, GM is on RAW of it doesn't explicitly state you get multiple attacks. We do our usual song and dance where I make the attempt to get the GM to see how I believe the rules should be read to which he responds by calling me a munchkin that always tries to squeeze as much as I can out of every rule and force the rules to fit my character concept instead of the other way around. He finishes by telling me that if I bothered to actually spend the time to read the rules, I would know how they actually worked.
While true I do tend to interpret rules in ways that I think work for whatever concept I'm working on, I wouldn't consider myself a munchkin at all and took some insult at this. However, Gm is right and I decided not to pursue that particular avenue.
Nevertheless, that extra barb at the end has stuck with me, and I have been of the thought lately of "ok, you want me

...

1. yes did take the feat.Evidence for more hands is more attacks can be seen with mudra skeleton and demon marlith.

2. True. However raw is murky IMO, hence why I tend to ask gm for how they interpret it when I see multiple possible interpretations. (Until this debate I didn't even know that the whole multi-weapon thing was a hug argument)

3-4. Debate is the spice of life. As far as doing it "only for power" not at all. Lots of other stuff I could have chosen to get more power. I chose it because it fit the concept I was working with, and the way I understood it, it would work. Hence my asking GM for his ruling. I did end up going with something else in the end for that character.

5. Yes, it is dream char campaign. Splat books, driders, wyrwoods, basically if its not third party its good. As far as taking it to get flurry back, a two-limbed character could invest in two weapon feat chain for same effect.

@Devil
Well as far as more details go, with this current group that ive been playing with the past few years, we all take turns running. One person will run a short term campaign for a few months and when that one is finished another person generally wants to try their hand with an idea they had.
Being a very RAI player and understanding that interpretations differ from person to person whenever I am making a new character and the language gets murky about how one thing works or two things work together, I present what I'm looking at to the dm. Get their interpretation, explain to them what my interpretation is and we both try to support our thesis with the caveat that in the end the GM is always right and in their game, the rules play their way (one that comes to mind is the trait that gives bonus to AC when wielding improvised weapon. Had a brawler who was an ex slave who still wore broken chains and mannacles. My interpretation is chains were still wielded even if I didnt attack with them since I could lash out with them as improvised weapon instead of using unarmed strike. He felt that wielding a weapon didnt work that way).
However the most recent thing that broke the camels back was for this most recent thing I was interested in playing a Kasatha - Master of many styles. Since master of many styles lose the flurry ability, I thought a decent way to offset it would me to take multi-weapon fighting for what was in effect "a fake flurry". I am of the RAI camp that multiple hands = multiple attacks, GM is on RAW of it doesn't explicitly state you get multiple attacks. We do our usual song and dance where I make the attempt to get the GM to see how I believe the rules should be read to which he responds by calling me a munchkin that always tries to squeeze as much as I can out of every rule and force the rules to fit my character concept instead of the other way around. He finishes by telling me that if I bothered to actually spend the time to read the rules, I would know how they actually worked.
While true I do tend to interpret rules in ways that I think work for whatever concept I'm working on, I wouldn't consider myself a munchkin at all and took some insult at this. However, Gm is right and I decided not to pursue that particular avenue.
Nevertheless, that extra barb at the end has stuck with me, and I have been of the thought lately of "ok, you want me to read the rules and see how they work. Hows this for how the rules actually work? Let me show you how the rules ACTUALLY work"

@everyone else, thank you for your opinions and input thus far, I appreciate them.

So I have been playing pathfinder for several years now, and other rpg's for decades before that. I have always been what is apparently considered a RAI type player. However, recently I have been playing with a couple of different groups, and things have taken a definite RAW turn. At first, I was fine with a rule here or there being strictly interpreted, but lately certain things that had been taken almost as a matter of course over my rp career are now being deemed as violation of RAW.
Now we are planning on doing a few high level sessions to test out dream builds and the like, and I am considering digging up and finding the most broken RAW things I can, and using them in my build as exploits until the GM gets frustrated enough to call me out with something along the lines of "you know X was meant to work this way and not that", as a means of showing them how silly things can get with strict RAW interpretation.
Things like infinite use snapdragon leaf, candle of invocation exploits, simulacrum exploits.
Basically anything that I can say "yeah, but by RAW it's legal".
Problem is it feels wrong / dirty to do this to prove a point, yet I feel a point must be proven. I apologize for my long windednes.

thank you for any feedback / input / advice.

TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?