If not, why? This has been a point of contention in my games that I've run with my players of the opinion that you should get shield bonus under the Flat-Footed condition, while I say it only makes sense that if you're unable to react, you are unable to move your shield in the way of an oncoming attack. My players don't like that idea, though. What do you guys and gals think?
The core rules don't say that you lose it, and the AP stat blocks reflect this. My houserules, however, follow your ruling.
|
It would be a house rule if you run it like that. The rules about flat-footedness specifically say that you lose DEX bonus to AC, not anything else, except in specific rules clarifications related to feats like Dodge. I wouldn't expect it to be unusually penalising, but it would depend on the cirumstances. Personally, I would think it is not unfair to lose Shield bonus in the sense of it being a reasonable corollary of being surprised as you describe, but I think you would need to agree it with your players since it is not RAW.
If not, why? This has been a point of contention in my games that I've run with my players of the opinion that you should get shield bonus under the Flat-Footed condition, while I say it only makes sense that if you're unable to react, you are unable to move your shield in the way of an oncoming attack. My players don't like that idea, though. What do you guys and gals think?
Then your shield bonus becomes the 3.5 Dodge bonus. You can only use it against one person at a time and not when FF.
|
+1 @ Kirth (Dang ninjas)
Though my current campaign is as much by RAW as possible (new players to the game, makes it easier) I usually house-rule that shields have no benefit if you can't react (flatfooted, helpeless, etc), since the opponent can just aim for the sizable portion of you that isn't holding the shield with little to no difficulty. Unless its a planted tower shield, but that has its own rule.
Oh, and I'm not sure why (by RAW) you get it when flatfooted. Maybe because it's still there and they could accidentally hit it? Though shields (sans tower shields) are based on deflection much more than absorption... oh well.
EDIT: It would be an interesting house-rule to say that (if flanked) you could only apply you shield bonus to one flanker or the other in a given round, not both, but double the shield bonus to compensate. This would make shielded characters very important AC-wise against the oncoming horde, but make them much less useful once surrounded (sans a circular phalanx formation). Or something like that (needs work).
If not, why? This has been a point of contention in my games that I've run with my players of the opinion that you should get shield bonus under the Flat-Footed condition, while I say it only makes sense that if you're unable to react, you are unable to move your shield in the way of an oncoming attack. My players don't like that idea, though. What do you guys and gals think?Then your shield bonus becomes the 3.5 Dodge bonus. You can only use it against one person at a time and not when FF.
Not really. The way I want to houserule it is that you can use it (your shield) against any number of attacks, but only if you're able to react to the attack.
I can see why some might be tempted to disregard a shield's bonus if a character is caught flat-footed. But consider that, even if not actively maneuvered around, a shield strapped to one's arm still covers a significant portion of its wielders body behind a barrier of reinforced wood or metal. Certainly a wily attacker would prefer to strike a part of a flat-footed defender's body not covered by the shield, but the abstracted Pathfinder combat system doesn't incorporate elements such as a defender's facing or aiming for specific parts of the body.
Think of the shield as an additional piece of armor; simply by virtue of being present on the defender's arm, it offers a set amount of extra protection against any and all physical attacks directed at the defender. Consider the fact that an attacker can't ignore a flat-footed defender's chain shirt AC bonus simply by aiming to strike his unprotected legs. Just as an attacker can't circumvent a defender's armor to strike a vulnerable spot, so can he not ignore a shield.
Fact is, it doesn't matter from which direction an attacker strikes an opponent; shield side or not, the defender's shield is always assumed to be offering some protection against the attack. So long as Pathfinder doesn't add in rules for called shots or facing in combat, it doesn't make any more sense to ignore a shield's AC bonus than it does to ignore a suit of armor's AC bonus. I suspect this is the rationale the game's designers had in mind when they wrote the rules as they are. Sure, one can always create various chink-in-the-armor house rules, but the RAW are fairly clear for anyone who prefers to stick with those.
Not really. The way I want to houserule it is that you can use it (your shield) against any number of attacks, but only if you're able to react to the attack.If not, why? This has been a point of contention in my games that I've run with my players of the opinion that you should get shield bonus under the Flat-Footed condition, while I say it only makes sense that if you're unable to react, you are unable to move your shield in the way of an oncoming attack. My players don't like that idea, though. What do you guys and gals think?Then your shield bonus becomes the 3.5 Dodge bonus. You can only use it against one person at a time and not when FF.
Then what? Make the defender roll a flat Reflex save against every attack to see if their shield bonus adds in?
No matter how you house rule this, you are going to be a dick. You can either be a logical dick or a dick just to be a dick.
If you can't use your shield when flat-footed, then for the same logical and technical reasons claimed, you can't use it when flanked. Or you can only use it against one opponent when flanked.
I can see why some might be tempted to disregard a shield's bonus if a character is caught flat-footed. But consider that, even if not actively maneuvered around, a shield strapped to one's arm still covers a significant portion of its wielders body behind a barrier of reinforced wood or metal. Certainly a wily attacker would prefer to strike a part of a flat-footed defender's body not covered by the shield, but the abstracted Pathfinder combat system doesn't incorporate elements such as a defender's facing or aiming for specific parts of the body.
Think of the shield as an additional piece of armor; simply by virtue of being present on the defender's arm, it offers a set amount of extra protection against any and all physical attacks directed at the defender. Consider the fact that an attacker can't ignore a flat-footed defender's chain shirt AC bonus simply by aiming to strike his unprotected legs. Just as an attacker can't circumvent a defender's armor to strike a vulnerable spot, so can he not ignore a shield.
Fact is, it doesn't matter from which direction an attacker strikes an opponent; shield side or not, the defender's shield is always assumed to be offering some protection against the attack. So long as Pathfinder doesn't add in rules for called shots or facing in combat, it doesn't make any more sense to ignore a shield's AC bonus than it does to ignore a suit of armor's AC bonus. I suspect this is the rationale the game's designers had in mind when they wrote the rules as they are. Sure, one can always create various chink-in-the-armor house rules, but the RAW are fairly clear for anyone who prefers to stick with those.
This is exactly correct.
Being flat-footed does not make you blind, and it does not make you helpless.
Since there is no facing, and since your shield bonus protects you from all attacks in a 360-degree circle, and since flat-footed does NOT prevent you from defending yourself nor from seeing your attackers, you are allowed all of your fully defensive capability - except your DEX modifier to AC.
The DEX modifier is the one explicit exception; all other AC modifiers remain intact for the very reason that you are still alert and still trying to protect yourself, even if your reflexes (DEX) are a little off.
(yes, I know, you also lose Dodge bonuses, but this is because Dodge bonuses are dependent upon DEX bonus, and losing DEX means you lose the dependencies too; your shield is NOT dependent on your DEX bonus).
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.
This is exactly correct.
Being flat-footed does not make you blind, and it does not make you helpless.
Since there is no facing, and since your shield bonus protects you from all attacks in a 360-degree circle, and since flat-footed does NOT prevent you from defending yourself nor from seeing your attackers, you are allowed all of your fully...
You and I look at the "Flat-Footed" condition very differently, apparently.
I always saw flat-footedness as exactly that... you are unable to react or do anything to properly defend yourself. Which is why you get your armor bonus and that's about it. To me, if you can't use your Dex to attempt to dodge, you likewise shouldn't be able to raise your shield arm to block an attack.
Even if you say "well, a shield is a huge piece of metal or wood and would give a bonus just by being in the way", what about Bucklers? They are very small and offer very little in terms of protection via volume.
|
|
Not really. The way I want to houserule it is that you can use it (your shield) against any number of attacks, but only if you're able to react to the attack.If not, why? This has been a point of contention in my games that I've run with my players of the opinion that you should get shield bonus under the Flat-Footed condition, while I say it only makes sense that if you're unable to react, you are unable to move your shield in the way of an oncoming attack. My players don't like that idea, though. What do you guys and gals think?Then your shield bonus becomes the 3.5 Dodge bonus. You can only use it against one person at a time and not when FF.Then what? Make the defender roll a flat Reflex save against every attack to see if their shield bonus adds in?
No matter how you house rule this, you are going to be a dick. You can either be a logical dick or a dick just to be a dick.
If you can't use your shield when flat-footed, then for the same logical and technical reasons claimed, you can't use it when flanked. Or you can only use it against one opponent when flanked.
What are you, trolling? It was only mentioned to be house-ruled as "You lose shield bonus when flat-footed". No-one mentioned any extra checks or anything as you added in.
What is being suggested is one simple house-rule coupled with a question of why that isn't RAW, not a list of ways to be a punk to your players.Even if a Fighter has the best shield possible (+5 tower shield) and is flat-footed once in every 10 attacks (probably more often than reality, but oh well) they lose an average of roughly 1 AC with this house-rule. Not that huge of a deal, and if your players don't like it then either don't use it or add 1 to the benefit of a shield and say "there, it evens out."
Random Note: As I stated earlier the planted tower shield has different mechanics (blocks LoS entirely) that wouldn't change whether flat-footed or not.
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.
Except logically and technically, your rule change doesn't make sense. To make sense, it has to be all or nothing. Either shield bonuses ALWAYS apply, or it is the 3.5 Dodge bonus - you can use it when not flat-footed and only against one target.
Why would he not be able to raise his shield against an attack but be able to use it against opponents on each side of him? Your lack of reaction time is already represented by being flat-footed, it doesn't remove all your armor because you can't move it all into a proper defensive position.
|
|
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.Except logically and technically, your rule change doesn't make sense. To make sense, it has to be all or nothing. Either shield bonuses ALWAYS apply, or it is the 3.5 Dodge bonus - you can use it when not flat-footed and only against one target.
There comes a point where a rule becomes too simulationist, and that point is the one where it becomes more work than its worth to play with it. Changing the "Shield AC Applies to Flat-Footed" from "Yes" to "No" is simple and requires no extra rolling. Everything you're suggesting as corollary would add a ton of work to the game with minimal increase in realism.
Disclaimer: The above is meant solely as constructive criticism.
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.Except logically and technically, your rule change doesn't make sense. To make sense, it has to be all or nothing. Either shield bonuses ALWAYS apply, or it is the 3.5 Dodge bonus - you can use it when not flat-footed and only against one target.
Why would he not be able to raise his shield against an attack but be able to use it against opponents on each side of him? Your lack of reaction time is already represented by being flat-footed, it doesn't remove all your armor because you can't move it all into a proper defensive position.
No, it does not have to be "all or nothing". That's a bit ridiculous. "Making sense" and "being 100% realistic" are not necessarily one in the same.
No, it does not have to be "all or nothing". That's a bit ridiculous. "Making sense" and "being 100% realistic" are not necessarily one in the same.I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.Except logically and technically, your rule change doesn't make sense. To make sense, it has to be all or nothing. Either shield bonuses ALWAYS apply, or it is the 3.5 Dodge bonus - you can use it when not flat-footed and only against one target.
Why would he not be able to raise his shield against an attack but be able to use it against opponents on each side of him? Your lack of reaction time is already represented by being flat-footed, it doesn't remove all your armor because you can't move it all into a proper defensive position.
Except how does it make sense to not apply when flat-footed but makes sense to apply when flanked? Or against multiple opponents?
You and I look at the "Flat-Footed" condition very differently, apparently.
I always saw flat-footedness as exactly that... you are unable to react or do anything to properly defend yourself.
Maybe. But those words you just used there, the ones that I bolded, sound like the description of the Helpless condition which says "completely at an opponent's mercy". I think your bolded phrase reads/interprets, at least in my mind, exactly like "compleely at an opponent's mercy".
So, if you're helpless, then you not only lose your DEX modifier, but your DEX is effectively ZERO (-5 modifier) and your enemies are +4 to hit you. And you can be killed with a Coup-de-Grace.
Clearly it's not your intention to have people Helpless during a surprise round. So, if they're not helpless, then it's clear that they get some rudimentary means of self-defense.
I imagine you treat them as having a DEX of 10 (+0 modifier) rather than a DEX of 0 (-5 modifier), which right there means that they are somewhat alert and able to protect themselves to some degree.
I also assume that, even though they are flat-footed, you let them see their enemies as they move on the battlefield, so they are not blinded while flat-footed, right? Flat-footed by RAW causes no penalties to Percetption checks.
So since their eyes are open and they are aware of their surroundings, and since they have some degree of self-defense available to them, then it seems to be overstated to call them "unable to react or do anything to properly defend yourself".
At worst, they are "slow to react and only able to do limited things to properly defend yourself".
Fortunately, by RAW, those limited things include the basic reflex action of interposing their shield against attacks.
Even if you say "well, a shield is a huge piece of metal or wood and would give a bonus just by being in the way", what about Bucklers? They are very small and offer very little in terms of protection via volume.
Sure a buckler is very small, which is why it only offers a measly +1 to AC. It probably won't interfere with most attacks, but it might block a stray arrow or two simply by virtue of it being idly swung around as you walk into an ambush. Sure it's not as good as a full body heavy shield, but it's better than nothing.
|
|
You and I look at the "Flat-Footed" condition very differently, apparently.
I always saw flat-footedness as exactly that... you are unable to react or do anything to properly defend yourself.
Maybe. But those words you just used there, the ones that I bolded, sound like the description of the Helpless condition which says "completely at an opponent's mercy". I think your bolded phrase reads/interprets, at least in my mind, exactly like "compleely at an opponent's mercy".
So, if you're helpless, then you not only lose your DEX modifier, but your DEX is effectively ZERO (-5 modifier) and your enemies are +4 to hit you. And you can be killed with a Coup-de-Grace.
Clearly it's not your intention to have people Helpless during a surprise round. So, if they're not helpless, then it's clear that they get some rudimentary means of self-defense.
I imagine you treat them as having a DEX of 10 (+0 modifier) rather than a DEX of 0 (-5 modifier), which right there means that they are somewhat alert and able to protect themselves to some degree.
I also assume that, even though they are flat-footed, you let them see their enemies as they move on the battlefield, so they are not blinded while flat-footed, right? Flat-footed by RAW causes no penalties to Percetption checks.
So since their eyes are open and they are aware of their surroundings, and since they have some degree of self-defense available to them, then it seems to be overstated to call them "unable to react or do anything to properly defend yourself".
At worst, they are "slow to react and only able to do limited things to properly defend yourself".
Fortunately, by RAW, those limited things include the basic reflex action of interposing their shield against attacks.
Okay, I actually like this explanation. +1
It has that last-second-block feel to it.Then again, it still seems weird in situations where there isn't that "last second" to tell, such as against invisible opponents. Maybe you roll with the blow? But where do you aim the shield? Oh well, I've overlooked worse.
Then again, it still seems weird in situations where there isn't that "last second" to tell, such as against invisible opponents. Maybe you roll with the blow? But where do you aim the shield?
Where do you aim the shield to stop blows from one person directly in front of you and another directly behind you?
Where do you aim the shield to stop blows from one person directly in front of you and another directly behind you?
Over your head of course. If watching Looney Toons has taught me anything, it's that two flanking attackers will always attempt overhead swings which will invariably hit each other on the head once you duck aside.
|
|
Then again, it still seems weird in situations where there isn't that "last second" to tell, such as against invisible opponents. Maybe you roll with the blow? But where do you aim the shield?Where do you aim the shield to stop blows from one person directly in front of you and another directly behind you?
Again with this...
We've already established that all we're arguing about is "Can React" versus "Can't React", not "Can react to both things." In any case, unless specifically timed I doubt both are striking simultaneously. It's just as easy/hard to imagine as "how do you dodge three simultaneous attacks just as well as you dodge one." Unfortunately accounting for this would be needlessly difficult for very little return. At best I'd say that enemies could time their strikes deliberately to get such an effect, but it would most certainly not be the default.Oh, and even if two opponents strike simultaneously, a 1-2ft shift and turning could force both opponents to turn their strikes to your center, which would contain your shield. Maybe. I don't know. The point is that it's too much work, and I'm lazy when I'm at the table.
Again with this...
We've already established that all we're arguing about is "Can React" versus "Can't React", not "Can react to both things." In any case, unless specifically timed I doubt both are striking simultaneously.
Oh, so there is no bonus for the opponents when flanking. Oh wait...
|
|
Where do you aim the shield to stop blows from one person directly in front of you and another directly behind you?Over your head of course. If watching Looney Toons has taught me anything, it's that two flanking attackers will always attempt overhead swings which will invariably hit each other on the head once you duck aside.
Or if they both strike properly with overhead swings you could still kneel a bit and place the shield above you, then stand while swinging your arms to deflect it.
IMO: It's the character's job to figure out how to place the shield. We just have to make sure he can move to place the shield.|
|
Again with this...
We've already established that all we're arguing about is "Can React" versus "Can't React", not "Can react to both things." In any case, unless specifically timed I doubt both are striking simultaneously.Oh, so there is no bonus for the opponents when flanking. Oh wait...
Yeah, but if the opponents are nearly opposite but not quite, like so:
XOO
OXX
OOO
Then you aren't flanked but are still not able to have the shield be in both places at once. Which, the way you seem to be going, I'm sure you would have brought up if I had succeeded in bringing up flanking.
So there, by your own admission we have a mechanic for dealing with the "it's harder, but doable."
The point is the "lack of reaction time" and "inability to focus on multiple opponents" is ALREADY factored into the system, there is no reason to screw over certain categories of melee characters even more.
|
|
The point is the "lack of reaction time" and "inability to focus on multiple opponents" is ALREADY factored into the system, there is no reason to screw over certain categories of melee characters even more.
Yeah, I know that. I never denied that. The question was is there ENOUGH TIME for a FLAT-FOOTED PERSON to use their SHIELD. A very specific question about one scenario, for which you keep coming up with other scenarios that having NOTHING to do with the original question (such as being flanked) as they all involve the person being completely aware of and already completely prepared to react to their opponents, which runs contrary to the established assumption of the flat-footed condition.
I initially answered that I thought the answer should be "no", but DM_Blake's interpretation of it makes the "yes" answer seem much more reasonable to me.There, thread done.
If you want to discuss the other crap, take it elsewhere.
Yeah, I know that. I never denied that. The question was is there ENOUGH TIME for a FLAT-FOOTED PERSON to use their SHIELD.
"Readying" the shield is part of YOUR REACTION TIME. The reaction time ALREADY penalized by being flat-footed.
A very specific question about one scenario,
A made up realism scenario that you are attempting to dismiss with a wave of your hand after I repeatedly explain the realism effect of being flat-footed.
Has anyone here ever fought with a shield? I have. I was in the SCA heavy combat for over 5 years. A shield, used consciously or not, provides protection to the wearer. It would deflect, block, and or just make a shot on me difficult, even when there would be 4 people attacking me, which happens a lot in mass combats.
The simple act of moving to block on attack suddenly would put it in the way, or knock away a different attack from someone else.
So, should you lose it when flat footed, as written for a rule, nope. You're unable to react to an attack immediately, but it doesn't stop the 3-4 ft portable wall you have with you from providing some measure of protection.
How's that for the people who want realism?
*Not trolling, just adding in some realistic and real world knowledge.
Then again, it still seems weird in situations where there isn't that "last second" to tell, such as against invisible opponents. Maybe you roll with the blow? But where do you aim the shield?Where do you aim the shield to stop blows from one person directly in front of you and another directly behind you?
Well first off you don't stand in between two people trying to hurt you. You take that side step back and present front to both of them hopefully angling so that one is slightly blocking the other. Of course they will move while this is happening too so you might be better off simply ramming one of them and spiraling off them to the side, thereby damaging and distracting one while getting the other in view. If you do it quickly you might be able to get in a gut shot while you are at it too.
Honestly the whole idea of "you can only use a shield against one opponent" is about as stupid as the thought that a shield is only for blocking, or that fighting with two weapons is hard, or that anything involving real combat has any to do with pathfinder combat.
|
|
See what you've done Abraham? You make one post and StabbittyDoom leaves!You know what? I'm done.
Peace.
That was in reference to Cartigan.
@Abraham, I made that note about side-stepping and other such things slightly later in the thread. I agree that you should be able to use shields against multiple opponents and that we should just leave that part of the abstraction where it is. (In other words, let the character handle that.)
|
See what you've done Abraham? You make one post and StabbittyDoom leaves!You know what? I'm done.
Peace.
That was in reference to Cartigan.
@Abraham, I made that note about side-stepping and other such things slightly later in the thread. I agree that you should be able to use shields against multiple opponents and that we should just leave that part of the abstraction where it is. (In other words, let the character handle that.)
Man, it's hard to tell a joke in this thread! ;)
|
Realism and D&D doesn't mix. D&D combat is like MAYBE 1% realistic...so just toss that out now.
As for shields being useless when flat footed...umm no. That shield even if it's not moving means you need to target an area not covered by that shield. That means any attacks that come in a cone of where that shield happens to be will end up hitting the shield and be foiled...thats a pretty large area that you can't attack...so you can either give a penalty to the attacker since they can't attack through that area...or you keep the shield bonus. The first will be work...with a lot of dicussion of what that penalty should be...the second is RAW.
Realism and D&D doesn't mix. D&D combat is like MAYBE 1% realistic...so just toss that out now.
As for shields being useless when flat footed...umm no. That shield even if it's not moving means you need to target an area not covered by that shield. That means any attacks that come in a cone of where that shield happens to be will end up hitting the shield and be foiled...thats a pretty large area that you can't attack...so you can either give a penalty to the attacker since they can't attack through that area...or you keep the shield bonus. The first will be work...with a lot of dicussion of what that penalty should be...the second is RAW.
Thank you.
Of course anyone can do whatever they want in their home games, but once you mention what that is on forums you open yourself up for criticism, both good and bad.
It does indeed make sense that shields would be useless when flat-footed. It would also make sense for even a 20th level character to die from a knife to the throat, but even a wizard can make their Fortitude save against coup de grace from a 1st level commoner while asleep. That's why it's called an abstraction.
If your suspension of disbelief falls flat on its face then by all means do something about it, but if you're going to introduce an unwarranted penalty you should introduce a bonus to balance it out.
Let them add their shield bonus to their Reflex saves as a trade-off.
What is the shield bonus is from a Shield spell?
I've practiced armored combat in the SCA on and off since 1983. My experience suggests that even if you're unaware of an impending attack, a properly-held shield makes it significantly harder to successfully strike you.
When facing opponents attacking from opposite sides, one's shield can substantially aid in defense against the one you can't see well: You position yourself so the shield obstructs your foe's best angles of attack and use your weapon to parry attacks from the opponent you face. With luck, the shield will obstruct your foe's strike for the crucial second or two needed to reposition yourself.
Yes assuming the shield is what you are standing on while you are flat-footed.
;)
So back to my other question... does one lose shield bonus when running?
Nope.
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.
Making real life sense does not always equal balance. Which is more important?
I will refer to my favorite example of improved crit and keen not stacking. One is magical, and the other is due to the character's skill.
Then what? Make the defender roll a flat Reflex save against every attack to see if their shield bonus adds in?No matter how you house rule this, you are going to be a dick. You can either be a logical dick or a dick just to be a dick.
If you can't use your shield when flat-footed, then for the same logical and technical reasons claimed, you can't use it when flanked. Or you can only use it against one opponent when flanked.
I have to agree. Simply possessing the shield protects the user. The game is also made so that the shield is suppose to count. These house rulings, while logical, are not proper for this game. This is a major nerf with the suggestions noted. Leave it alone.
|
|
I have to agree. Simply possessing the shield protects the user. The game is also made so that the shield is suppose to count. These house rulings, while logical, are not proper for this game. This is a major nerf with the suggestions noted. Leave it alone.
+1
There is no reason to take the shield bonus away from somebody who is flat footed. Holding a inch thick sheet of steel and wood to protect your midsection is going to cause some issue with trying to hit your regardless of you ability to react to a blow or not. The person is going to have to work around that barrier and in doing so that is where the AC comes from, them being flat-footed doesn't make the shield disappear or turn it into gas for that attack.
I have to admit, I've been swayed. Not by the "it's RAW so suck it up" or "don't be a dick" folks, though (those kinds of attitudes make me want to dig in my heels and keep to my original beliefs even more, incidentally. *hint hint*). Some eloquent points were made by certain posters and I'll give them some serious thought, though I'm leaning towards letting them keep their shield bonus while flat footed.
I fail to see how using logic is "being a dick". I like my rules to make sense.Making real life sense does not always equal balance. Which is more important?
I will refer to my favorite example of improved crit and keen not stacking. One is magical, and the other is due to the character's skill.
I do allow them to stack in my games... but 15-20 is the largest threat range one can have under my rules. No 11-20 crit threat rapiers in my games.
I have to admit, I've been swayed. Not by the "it's RAW so suck it up" or "don't be a dick" folks, though (those kinds of attitudes make me want to dig in my heels and keep to my original beliefs even more, incidentally. *hint hint*).
If they are right then they are right. It won't affect their games. I am not advocating a poster hurling insults because they are right, but I am also against ignoring the truth just because the person that was right was a jerk.
ps:I dont think anyone was calling you a name. The point was that it was a bad decision, even if it could have been worded better.
I have to admit, I've been swayed. Not by the "it's RAW so suck it up" or "don't be a dick" folks, though (those kinds of attitudes make me want to dig in my heels and keep to my original beliefs even more, incidentally. *hint hint*).If they are right then they are right. It won't affect their games. I am not advocating a poster hurling insults because they are right, but I am also against ignoring the truth just because the person that was right was a jerk.
ps:I dont think anyone was calling you a name. The point was that it was a bad decision, even if it could have been worded better.
I never said anyone called me a name.... just that those who tried making their points brusquely didn't help their cause any, at least with me. Even on the internet it pays to be nice sometimes.
I never said anyone called me a name.... just that those who tried making their points brusquely didn't help their cause any, at least with me. Even on the internet it pays to be nice sometimes.I have to admit, I've been swayed. Not by the "it's RAW so suck it up" or "don't be a dick" folks, though (those kinds of attitudes make me want to dig in my heels and keep to my original beliefs even more, incidentally. *hint hint*).If they are right then they are right. It won't affect their games. I am not advocating a poster hurling insults because they are right, but I am also against ignoring the truth just because the person that was right was a jerk.
ps:I dont think anyone was calling you a name. The point was that it was a bad decision, even if it could have been worded better.
I did not remember who the dick comment was in reply to, but I see how it could have been seen as an insult. I agree that civilty goes a long way, and I have extended debates just to annoy the jerk in question.