|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is made up.
Let me say that again, because it is important.
The game is made up.
You use the rules so that a third party can be the one who created the common guidelines you all are going to agree to play under. It is a social contract. You choose which rules to use you use based on a shared belief that the developers who wrote those rules had in mind how the game works. The rules they wrote down are them attempting to convey those rules to others.
So if you aren’t trying to figure out what the intended purpose of the rule is when you are reading it, what are you doing?
Seriously, what are you doing? This isn’t rhetorical, this is an actual question. You went to the trouble of acquiring rules so you could have a group of people all able to sit down at a table. You paid money to someone to create the game and write the rules, presumably because you think that person can design a good game.
Why the hell would you undermine the entire social contract you just agreed to by looking for loopholes.
I mean, if it was actually a real world, that wasn’t made up, sure loopholes can have benefits. Look at Wall Street.
But back to the original point, The World Is Made Up.
If you don’t like the Devs intent, house rule to your heart’s content. That is the social contract you are making at your table.
But stop coming on here and proposing ludicrous things as if the Devs meant for you to be able to do them, and it isn’t a loophole.
If you can’t say with a straight face if the Dev was GMing the game they would allow this, than it is a house rule.
Deal with it.
|
|
Eh, I suppose it's not really up to you what people choose to post about, and posting areas where the rules break down can be constructive by informing the next errata release, or even letting GMs know where there's an issue.
And in many cases a matter, diving the Dev's intent is subjective...if the Devs even HAD an intent with respect to whatever the scenario is.
I don't at all care for the role-playing-by-tax-accountants approach many take, myself, but consider laying off the self-appointed gaming virtue police approach.
All I am saying is the question you should ask should be "If the Devs were running the game, would they let me do this." rather than "Is there a loophole I can exploit."
Who disagrees with this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because deconstructing the artificial constructs we have agreed to play by helps us understand them, use them to enhance our roleplaying experience, and ultimately reconstruct them to better fit their intended purpose.
|
|
"If you can’t say with a straight face if the Dev was GMing the game they would allow this, than it is a house rule." is obviously incorrect. First, rather something is or is not a house rule has nothing to do with who is DMing, it has to do with rather or not that rule is written in the book. Second, even the developers use house rules. That doesn't make their house rules RAW.
You're notation about my tone while being condescending towards me is cute, but I'll feel generous right back at you and respond.
The Devs wrote the rules.
You bought the rules, presumably, to follow them.
So if you are trying to do something you don't believe the people who wrote the rules you intended to follow would not allow, what would you call it other than a house ruling?
We aren't talking about theorycraft threads, we are talking about people saying this is common practice.
Ashiel at least seems to believe the Devs would allow her suggestions, as ridiculous as I find them, so this isn't directed at her (although she doesn't seem to FAQ often...) but rather toward people who know very well they are going against RAI and hide behind RAW to defend it.
It is akin to saying "Since the bullet was what actually killed the person, I am technically innocent of murder" and expecting the judge to let that fly.
|
|
@ LazarX
Over on the PFS board there is a conversation going on about why people have stopped running games. One of the big reasons was bad players coming in and running off good players.
I am in a fairly large, but closed group of players. Other than spouses and significant others we haven't added anyone to the core group in literally years, because of problem players making ridiculous attempts to manipulate the game, ruining game sessions for the rest of us.
I personally won't go near a game store event anymore because of it, as it seems everyone who can't get a home game because they alienated their home group shows up.
Letting players who are permitted to do ridiculous things in their games got uncontested on the messageboard is to me, akin to letting them take over your game until all the reasonable players are chased off and you are left with dreck that makes you not want to run anymore.
I don't hang out in the theorycraft threads, I hang out in the rules threads. The rules threads are where people are discussing the actual meanings of the rules, and seeking adjudication and clarification.
If you are there trying to argue a loophole as legit, my calling you out on it isn't rude, it's what the forum is for.
Personal opinions are personal, forum posts are up for debate and discussion.
My intent for this post is to get people to stop trying to manipulate the game while claiming they are trying to understand it.
If you are trying to understand a rule, you try to ask "What was the Dev trying to say here." No one in omniscient, and the answer to that question is very much up for debate.
What happens to often on here is people will instead argue that "technically I can do X, because it doesn't say I can't, so nyah!"
To which I again say, you should ask should be "If the Devs were running the game, would they let me do this." rather than "Is there a loophole I can exploit."
|
|
I don't doubt that the Devs would say her suggestion that caster level bonuses actually apply when casting spells, yes, even gate, would be within the rules.
If you honestly believe that the ability for a 17th level caster to gate in and fully control Solar or a Titan wasn't an unintended consequence of not nailing specific wording down to close all possible loopholes, I don't know what to say to you. But at least that is an honest position, if that is what you take.
You believe the Devs intended for that to be a possible thing for the rules to allow.
Which is fine. It's what I am saying you should do.
I'm pretty sure if we took a survey most would disagree that the Devs intended for you to be able to do that, and I'm fairly confident that loophole will be closed, much like many others have been closed in FAQs over time.
But if you are arguing that "RAW this technicality works" while knowing that if a Dev was in the room or running the game, they would immediately close the loophole, you are exactly who I am talking about.
Negative first: You DO sound a bit angry and mean. Please try to tone it down a little bit at least, it's nicer that way.
Positive second: I fully agree with you.
To take the RAW beats RAI argument to the extreme, we are supposed to refer to common dictionaries when there is no defined game term for a word. Look at the initiative rules:
"At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check."
So, while initiative is a game term, combatant isn't. What does the dictionary say?
Combatant
"One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife."
This means:
1. The prisoners who are trying to run past the PC's don't roll initiative, since they're not taking part of the strife.
2. In an unarmed brawl, nobody rolls initiative (since it's not armed strife). The second someone picks up a bar stool, everyone rolls initiative.
If going by a strict reading of the rules. However, the rules as intended are clear - and so we ignore the hardcore RAW reading. This also applies to "you can act while dead if you died of death effects, but not if you died of hit points damage unless someone uses smelling salts (then you can act while dead)" and so on.
The question is in cases where RAI might be blurry at best... If a person is only 70% certain that something is RAI (and is not at the same time RAW), should he go by his gut feeling or the RAW? I'm unsure, it depends on the situation.
Whether or not it's a house rule... Depends on how clear the RAW is, and how clearly we know the RAI. In the case of prayer beads vs controlling solars both are unclear, so I don't see it as house rules either way. In the case of antagonize, RAW was very clear and while we could guess the RAI we didn't know for sure - thus it's clearly a house rule.
Now, if someone like James Jacobs would've come out and said "well, we intended for it to be +10 DC, I'll talk to the others and we'll get around to putting it in the errata"... That would be a very different case, even before the errata is printed, and I have a hard time saying anyone playing according to explicit RAI as "house ruling". It is very different from when the dev's house rule; when a dev house rules, I assume it's because either a. hir rules preferences isn't the same as the rest of the dev's or b. the devs think that the rules fit them but not the general public. If all devs agree that "this is the way the rules should be", then playing that way isn't really house ruling, just like saying "you can't act when dead" or "you roll initiative even if it's a tavern brawl" isn't house ruling.
|
|
@LazarX
Like I said, I have a good large group. To large in fact...
But this is the messageboard where people come to get community adjudication on rules, and if it is acceptable for someone to propose that a loophole is legitimate, is is acceptable to call them out on it.
Theorycraft belongs in theorycraft, rules discussion involves discussing the rules and trying to get to the root of the intent of the Devs.
If ShadowcatX and Ashiel honestly believe the Devs intended for a 17th level caster to be able to summon and control something with a CR nearly 6 higher than the group they are a part of, they can take that position and defend it.
But defend that position. If you you honestly believe the Devs intended for it to be that way all along, say it.
If you don't believe that, if you know it was an oversight or mistake, admit it.
I would agree with your premise, but I would add that when one is making rule clarifications a more utilitarian approach should also be included. I know within our group we go with "Does this rule make things fun?" Are the PCs and the GM having fun? When it comes to rules issues with my gaming group, this is usually the issue that is in the forefront of our minds. We then look at the RAI.
|
|
@ LazerX
I think the vast majority of people on the rules forum are there to honestly discuss unclear rules, or to seek community guidance on how to adjudicate complicated rules.
Unfortunately there is a small vocal minority who want to show off loopholes they "discovered" and then get angry when people point out that it is a loophole or theorycraft.
If you want to show off a house rule or get into theorycraft there are a threads for that. But it is at a point where you can't discuss restrictions in the rules without someone screaming that only a "cruel" GM would hold players to limits and restrictions.
The rules forum is where players go to ask questions about complex rules from experienced players. So when someone is bending the rules and proclaiming it gospel, it is a problem. I'm saying that in this thread we all need to be trying to figure out what the rule was trying to do, and how we can accomplish that, rather than how we can manipulate and bend the rule to get around it.
|
|
Theorycraft belongs in theorycraft, rules discussion involves discussing the rules and trying to get to the root of the intent of the Devs.Interesting, I'm not sure I agree though. Regardless, when I answer a question about the rules, if it is a question on which RAW and RAI may divide, I generally try and provide both.
You absolutely do. I have no issue with honest disagreement if you really believe the Devs intended something to be a certain way.
But it drives me up a wall when people are clearly looking for loopholes but won't admit it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TOZ
We've had this conversation a million times. I respect the hell out of Kirthfinder because it is exactly what is claims to be. A group taking a ruleset and "fixing" it to meet how they want to play.
No one from Kirthfinder comes over to the rules forum and claims the Kirthfinder rules are the Pathfinder rules. They claim they are better, they claim they make more sense, but they don't claim they are the Pathfinder rules.
If I went into a Kirthfinder thread and shouted about how you all were doing Kirthfinder wrong because in my game we follow X pathfinder rule, it would be how I view some people coming into the rules forum saying "In our game we allow this, and if your GM doesn't they are cruel"
Some RAI that differs from RAW is very obvious. I agree that anyone trying to exploit loopholes or semantics in these situations is being silly. That does not mean someone coming onto the forums and pointing this out is doing the same - they might just be interested in offering their interpretation and maybe getting some needed FAQ or errata.
On the other hand, sometimes RAI that differs from RAW is not so obvious. Multiple interpretations that have plenty of logic might be presented. At this point, it should be recommended that a person brings this to the forums and discuss it with others.
But really, when it comes down to it, you, as a forum goer, can simply ignore threads you are not interested in.
The game is made up.
Let me say that again, because it is important.
The game is made up.
You use the rules so that a third party can be the one who created the common guidelines you all are going to agree to play under. It is a social contract. You choose which rules to use you use based on a shared belief that the developers who wrote those rules had in mind how the game works. The rules they wrote down are them attempting to convey those rules to others.
So if you aren’t trying to figure out what the intended purpose of the rule is when you are reading it, what are you doing?
Seriously, what are you doing? This isn’t rhetorical, this is an actual question. You went to the trouble of acquiring rules so you could have a group of people all able to sit down at a table. You paid money to someone to create the game and write the rules, presumably because you think that person can design a good game.
Why the hell would you undermine the entire social contract you just agreed to by looking for loopholes.
I mean, if it was actually a real world, that wasn’t made up, sure loopholes can have benefits. Look at Wall Street.
But back to the original point, The World Is Made Up.
If you don’t like the Devs intent, house rule to your heart’s content. That is the social contract you are making at your table.
But stop coming on here and proposing ludicrous things as if the Devs meant for you to be able to do them, and it isn’t a loophole.
If you can’t say with a straight face if the Dev was GMing the game they would allow this, than it is a house rule.
Deal with it.
Just because something is an unintended consequence of the rules that does not make it not RAI. An example is chain-binding genies. It is RAW and doable by RAI, even if it is against what I would call good gameplay.
Loopholes do not automatically translate to "not RAI".
But it strongly hints at it being Not RAI.
By definition a loophole is not RAI.
You can argue something is not a loophole, and that it is RAI, but RAI and loophole are mutually exclusive.
By loophole I mean unintended consequence like the binding of genies is legal*, but highly frowned upon. There is no rule against it.
*There is no rule against binding genies, and then using dominate monster on them.
As an edit to my last post I will say "cheese" does not automatically translate to "not RAI".
Exploiting RAI used in unforseen ways is the worse form of cheese because it is harder to find a recourse to fight it.
|
|
@ Wraithstrike
You can't exploit RAI. RAI is the rules running as the developers envisioned and intended. If you are doing that, you can't "cheese" or exploit, as both of them indicated trying to take advantage of something that wasn't intended to be there.
If I have a 20 strength at 1st level because I have an 18 and took the racial bonus to strength, it isn't a loophole or exploit.
If I argue some obscure rule allows me to be a half ogre blah, blah, blah, and so I have a 28 strength at 1st level...different story.
Again, it is a very simple test. If you had the developers of the game at your table and proposed whatever the proposal you have is, would they allow it.
If you believe yes, even if I don't agree with you at least you are being intellectually honest.
If you believe no, get that weak sauce out of the rules thread.
I've found a good test is if the person is willing to FAQ it or not, since it is functionally asking the Devs to weigh in.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned-- if RAI and RAW conflict-- RAI takes precedence. That makes seeking and understanding RAI quite important.
Also, everything in the rules is subject to interpretation. Especially since there are plenty of rules where the intent isn't obvious, and the rules were originally written in English (a notoriously inexact, context-driven language)-- most of us discussing the game here are likely using the original English-language version of the rules (not sure how many other languages PF has been translated to, but I'm not sufficiently fluent in any language other than English to make use of them myself).
Ciretose--
I agree with your general point about loopholes in RAW are almost always violations of RAI; although I also see Wraithstrike's point about being able to abuse things that more or less do fit within RAI as well.
|
|
But it drives me up a wall when people are clearly looking for loopholes but won't admit it.
Jus because YOU think that people are looking for loopholes does not necessarily make it so. They just might have an understanding of the RAW that is different from that of other people (including the Devs). Case in point : the clarification on FoB.
Or do you clamor loud and strong that the Devs are always right, have always been right and will always be right and anyone who has another opinion on what the RAW means is a blasphemous heretic, even when said Devs later change their mind ?
Infaillibility has been the bane of the Papal institution. I do not wish such a curse on the Devs.
In other words, the RAI are not and should not be the be-all and end-all of the game. Fun for all should be.
|
|
@The Black Raven
If you want to change the rules for your home game, feel free.
If you want to post about how awesome it is in the homebrew forum, feel free.
But in the rules forum, you are there to discuss the rules at they are intended by the people who wrote them.
If the intent of the rules doesn't matter to you, write your own rules like the Kirthfinder people and acknowledge you aren't playing by the rules the Devs wrote.
The FoB issue is exactly the kind of thing that I want the rules forum to deal with, so we can come to a consensus to get a clear ruling and/or fix for the lack of clarity.
Unfortunately everyones home brew gerryrigging charges into the conversation, disrupting and derailing any possible serious conversation on a) if it is an issues and b) how to address it.
|
|
Infaillibility has been the bane of the Papal institution. I do not wish such a curse on the Devs.In other words, the RAI are not and should not be the be-all and end-all of the game. Fun for all should be.
BR--
I'm inclined to agree with both these statements as written. Fun for all is definitely what IMO should be the be-all and end-all point of the game.
So--
RAW, likewise (regardless of how one interprets the RAW), is not and definitely should not be the be-all and end-all of the game either.
@ Wraithstrike
You can't exploit RAI. RAI is the rules running as the developers envisioned and intended. If you are doing that, you can't "cheese" or exploit, as both of them indicated trying to take advantage of something that wasn't intended to be there.
If I have a 20 strength at 1st level because I have an 18 and took the racial bonus to strength, it isn't a loophole or exploit.
If I argue some obscure rule allows me to be a half ogre blah, blah, blah, and so I have a 28 strength at 1st level...different story.
Again, it is a very simple test. If you had the developers of the game at your table and proposed whatever the proposal you have is, would they allow it.
If you believe yes, even if I don't agree with you at least you are being intellectually honest.
If you believe no, get that weak sauce out of the rules thread.
I've found a good test is if the person is willing to FAQ it or not, since it is functionally asking the Devs to weigh in.
RAI is how each individual rule works, not any combination of the rules.
Chain-binding is legal by RAI even if it is an exploit. There is no rule against it.Binding outsider is rule legal.
Dominating monster is rules legal.
Therefore:
Dominating monsters that are bound is rules legal. Just because some of them grant access to wish does not make it against the rules. It just means that a player should not do it.
The devs being there is no factor. Not to pick on RD but many of his post he takes as the correct interpretation even when many others including the devs disagree. It is also not factor because what works by the rules even as intended, and what you can reasonably expect a GM to allow are also not the same thing.
Once again I reference chain-binding in order to keep getting wishes. It is perfectly with the RAI(Rules as Intended).
I think the issue here is that you see RAI as HERSBCTPL(How each rule should be combined to prevent loopholes).
The other issue is that what is ok, and not ok is also a matter of playstyle. That is why RAI can only apply to each rule individually. From there each group/GM must decide what is or is not ok to combine. Controlling a solar at level 17 or 18 might be ridiculous at your table, but not to someone else.
Whoa whoa whoa. Just because there's no rule against something doesn't mean it's RAI.
Whoa whoa whoa. Just because there's no rule against something doesn't mean it's RAI.
That is not what I said. :)
|
|
@Wraithstrike
I completely disagree.
RAI is how the rules are intended to work. If a rule has unintended consequences that lead to exploits, that was not how the rule was intended to work.
If you think it is an "exploit" than it clearly wasn't intended. Otherwise it wouldn't be an "exploit" it would be how they meant it to be.
The question isn't if it is ridiculous at a given table, the question is if the people who we pay money to design the game intended for it to work that way.
Put another way, if you like it at your table, great. If other people like it, perhaps they can subscribe to your newsletter, or perhaps you can do a 3PP or do what Kirthfinder did.
That is great.
But I have paid a lot of money buying books from WoTC and Paizo over the years so that when I sit down at a table with someone else, I can presume we are both agreeing to play the game by the rules the developers intended, unless otherwise agreed on.
Do I have house rules, yes.
Do I say those house rules are RAI when I am having discussions of the rules in rules threads. Nope.
That to me is the difference.
I will suggest a rule should change, I will suggest a rule is wrong or imperfect. I will say that I do it differently in my game. But I fully understand that the rules forum is where you discuss "the" rules, not "my" rules.
And I am annoyed that the forum doesn't serve the intended purpose of being a place to adjudicate rules concerns and hopefully if not get things changed, at least get guidance, because some people have to derail topics by interjecting their house rules as the rules, despite having an entire other thread specifically for discussing houserules and home brew.
@Wraithstrike
I completely disagree.
RAI is how the rules are intended to work. If a rule has unintended consequences that lead to exploits, that was not how the rule was intended to work.
RAI to you is RAIT*(Rules as intended to work together)
RAI to most of us takes each rule individually.If someone comes into the rules thread and ask me is it possible for chain-bind in order to get wishes I would say yes, but it's a bad idea, because the rules do permit it. If it does not work, then what is my reference? At no point does the monster become immune to being dominated.
If it works by RAI(not to be confused with RAIT) then it is not a houserule.
In short if I can say it does not work by referencing RAI of any one individual rule then I am houseruling by saying they can not chain-bind to get wishes. That is not a bad thing, but it is a houserule.
*easier to remember than the other term I made up.
|
|
@Wraithstrike
I completely disagree.
RAI is how the rules are intended to work. If a rule has unintended consequences that lead to exploits, that was not how the rule was intended to work.
RAI to you is RAIT*(Rules as intended to work together)
RAI to most of us takes each rule individually.If someone comes into the rules thread and ask me is it possible for chain-bind in order to get wishes I would say yes, but it's a bad idea, because the rules do permit it. If it does not work, then what is my reference? At no point does the monster become immune to being dominated.
If it works by RAI(not to be confused with RAIT) then it is not a houserule.
In short if I can say it does not work by referencing RAI of any one individual rule then I am houseruling by saying they can not chain-bind to get wishes. That is not a bad thing, but it is a houserule.*easier to remember than the other term I made up.
Adjudicating rules out of context doesn't actual adjudicate the rule.
If I say everyone must eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and someone raised their hand and says "I'm allergic to peanut butter", it was an unintended consequence of a rule I put in place.
If I still push the rule through without considering the context, and the kid goes into anaphylactic shock, I fail.
You always have to ask the question of if this was something intended to happen or an unintended consequence. You can discuss how to "fix" it if it is unintended, but you shouldn't just shrug and ignore it.
When the kid says he is allergic that is when the GM(server) steps in and ignores the ruling even if the manual says he must have peanut butter and jelly.
The does not change the rule that the book says everyone must have peanut butter and jelly.
It just means that whoever wrote the manual was not aware that such a combination might be a bad idea.
|
As far as I'm concerned-- if RAI and RAW conflict-- RAI takes precedence. That makes seeking and understanding RAI quite important.
Agreed. Since someone already mentioned RD, he's an example of someone who often...not quite always, but very often....comes at it from the exact opposite viewpoint. Sometimes I'm not even sure if he's looking for a specific advantage, as it seems his goal is often just to mangle the RAW as far away from RAI as he possibly can.
|
|
When the kid says he is allergic that is when the GM(server) steps in and ignores the ruling even if the manual says he must have peanut butter and jelly.
The does not change the rule that the book says everyone must have peanut butter and jelly.
It just means that whoever wrote the manual was not aware that such a combination might be a bad idea.
Which I interpret as the rule having an unintended consequence that will be corrected if brought to their attention.
Making it not RAI.
People make mistakes that have unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are by definition, not intended.
If a rule has unintended consequences, it is by definition not Rule as Intended.
|
|
As far as I'm concerned-- if RAI and RAW conflict-- RAI takes precedence. That makes seeking and understanding RAI quite important.Agreed. Since someone already mentioned RD, he's an example of someone who often...not quite always, but very often....comes at it from the exact opposite viewpoint. Sometimes I'm not even sure if he's looking for a specific advantage, as it seems his goal is often just to mangle the RAW as far away from RAI as he possibly can.
Yes, but at least in my experience he generally admits that is what he is doing and doesn't expect others to follow along.
It is the pied pipers of exploitation that bug me.
One reason I am disagreeing is because at what point does something become too much? What if there was a CR 23 monster that only had 20 HD. The solar as an example has 22 HD even though the CR is 23. Do you tell the level 20 caster he can't bring the monster in?
If an item boost caster level by only 1 do you let it go, but then say no if the can find a way to boost his caster level by 8?
What is or is not allowed really boils down to play style on many occasions. The devs are only here to tell us what the individual rules are. How much power we should allow RAI legal rules to give is up to the group. This is not much different than the pouncing barbarian in 3.5 with leap attack, and some other things that allowed him to take do ridiculous damage. I am sure the devs of 3.5 did not intend for that to happen either, but that does not make it not a rule.
It is very possible to work withing the what the rules give you, and still make bad(as in bad taste) decisions.
|
|
Adjudicating rules out of context doesn't actual adjudicate the rule.
Ciretose--
I think you've made an excellent point here. This is why I agree with you that to have a good, solid grasp on RAI one must understand how the rules work together and be considering them in context as part of a system, not as individual, separate rules.
When considering the rules, both as written and as intended, it is almost useless to look solely at each individual rule and sub-rule as entirely its own entity, without considering how the rule works in context with other rules, unless that rule is being considered in regard to its application in a context where it is the only rule applied and no other rules affect the situation at all.
Otherwise, everything is happening in context with the rest of the rules, and should be considered in that light since that's the way they are used.
|
|
But in the rules forum, you are there to discuss the rules at they are intended by the people who wrote them.
I do not agree with this at all.
"Rules forum : This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
I expect this forum to be the place you come to when you have a question about rules. Sometimes it is because you did not catch all the aspects of a rule, sometimes it is because the rule is not completely unambiguous.
In other words, it is the place where we try to get RAW to cover as much ground as needed.
BTW, Ciretose, since no one can read the Devs' mind, focusing on what they intended for the rules instead of debating on what the RAW actually says and whether it could be improved and in which ways would actually require the Devs to comment on each and every thread about rules.
One reason I am disagreeing is because at what point does something become too much? What if there was a CR 23 monster that only had 20 HD. The solar as an example has 22 HD even though the CR is 23. Do you tell the level 20 caster he can't bring the monster in?
If an item boost caster level by only 1 do you let it go, but then say no if the can find a way to boost his caster level by 8?
What is or is not allowed really boils down to play style on many occasions. The devs are only here to tell us what the individual rules are. How much power we should allow RAI legal rules to give is up to the group. This is not much different than the pouncing barbarian in 3.5 with leap attack, and some other things that allowed him to take do ridiculous damage. I am sure the devs of 3.5 did not intend for that to happen either, but that does not make it not a rule.
It is very possible to work withing the what the rules give you, and still make bad(as in bad taste) decisions.
That last sentence should be:
It is very possible to work within what the rules give you, and still make bad(as in bad taste) decisions. If the player does not have a good handle on the group power level/optimization level, then the GM has to step in and say "NO".