I recently saw someone argue that you shouldn't be able to multi class paladins and monks because both require them to be lawful, and that got me thinking, what is the strangest argument you have seen for our against something?
Plenty on this very board, but yours kind of takes the cake.
I wonder what he has to say about multiclassing barbarian and paladin.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.x used to have rules against paladins and monks multiclassing. This is probably a hangover from that. And it was not because they were lawful as such, as to do with the focus required.
And even then you could multiclass out or in, but once you took levels in another class after taking a level in paladin or monk, you could not continue your training in that class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh
Paladins and monks both used to be restricted from multiclassing in 3E. If they gained a level in a second class they could no longer progress as a monk or paladin. IIRC this was justified because their callings required extreme dedication and commitment - which is a little like saying they were extra Lawful.
So while the argument makes no sense within PF I can see where someone who played 3E might get that idea...
EDIT: Ninjas can multiclass, right?
To the best of my knowledge, he never played 3rd edition, it was honestly just baffling to me when I heard it.
Anyone else got anything silly?
That one is just cool.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tell you, every single "Should the paladin fall?" thread are identical and yet so very different. You just never know what to expect- and then you go through the motions all over again. It's very zen.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tell you, every single "Should the paladin fall?" thread are identical and yet so very different. You just never know what to expect- and then you go through the motions all over again. It's very zen.
Holy water over a cliff - Paladin Falls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing here with an argument about how Overwatch Style works.
It went into you can't do something a feat says you can do. It was very confusing to read and follow through with.
|
This whole thing here with an argument about how Overwatch Style works.
It went into you can't do something a feat says you can do. It was very confusing to read and follow through with.
I love how there's two different arguments going on in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing here with an argument about how Overwatch Style works.
It went into you can't do something a feat says you can do. It was very confusing to read and follow through with.
That is...quite the mess.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we REALLY want to bring up some wacky RAW shenanigans, this is probably my favourite!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once saw a thread on another website where someone argued that while a single attack with a bow provoked an Aoo, a full attack with a bow did not because the Actions in combat table says full attacks don't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is an absolute masterpiece. "The bow may be +4, but the string is only +0" lol
I once saw a thread on another website where someone argued that while a single attack with a bow provoked an Aoo, a full attack with a bow did not because the Actions in combat table says full attacks don't.
Oh. Wow. That's awesome!
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
From another thread: an example brought in showing that by RAW, greatswords are not allowed to be cold iron, since nowhere in their description does it say it's metal.
For context, as I'm the one who said it, it was to point out that it was silly to claim you couldn't make the blades on a scorpion whip cold iron because the book didn't specifically say the blades were metal. So I threw out the thing about greatswords to illustrate the problems with that interpretation...then the person I was arguing with agreed that, by RAW, greatswords couldn't be made of cold iron.
Yeesh...
Incidentally essentially no bladed weapons are specifically called out as being metal, presumably because they assume most people know what a "blade" is.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
From another thread: an example brought in showing that by RAW, greatswords are not allowed to be cold iron, since nowhere in their description does it say it's metal.
It was an apt example of how you cannot rely on explicit permission in RAW. The facepalm moment was when the person arguing the blades on a scorpion whip did not have explicit RAW saying they could be made of metal was more willing to accept greatswords were not made of metal (because they lacked explicit RAW) than he was willing to admit his argument was wrong.
Once had a player argue with me, while I was GMing, that Wizards had to be lawful and could fall just like a Paladin and lose their abilities if they committed a chaotic act...I'm still not sure where that came from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was new to roleplaying I argumented to anyone who would listen that when you change shape/polymorph/enlarge,etc. yourself your body mass couldn't change because of the law of mass conservation so if you weight 70 kilograms and you change to a huge size creature you'd still weight 70 kgs. or something like that. I cannot remember what my exact arguments were but I was adamant about it. Now when I remember it I cannot but laugh at my young self.
Kids, never try to bring real life physics to fantasy settings. It doesn't work.
Did they confuse the two or did they know the difference between the classes?
They fully knew the difference between the two. At first I thought they meant monks, but no, they were insistent on it being wizards. They called out spellcasting and familiars in particular.
My condolences.
I felt more for the chaotic good wizard at the table who had to deal with some of it as well. Fortunately, the argumentative player didn't last at our table very long. Let's just say there was trouble meshing with the rest of the group.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya don't say? :3
I, too, was shocked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somehow, I think it a holdover from a previous edition or maybe another game...but I'm not sure. I've heard 'Wizards must be Lawful' somewhere before, but I can't think of what that might be...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
M!~#&%!&%%#%. Did you him a live demonstration of sneak attack with a katar afterwards?
I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
How long did he last?
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
"That's your point of view, not mine."
"RARGH! D*** POSTMODERNISM!"
*does the predictable*
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gave a brief lecture on Wittgenstein's private language argument once when I had a player pull the "that's my interpretation of the rules" and "my interpretation is the only true one for my character" thing.
Meaning is derived from intersubjective consensus within a linguistic community, y'all. Your linguistic community includes the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gave a brief lecture on Wittgenstein's private language argument...
Wittgenstein's name makes a good rhythm to bang a recalcitrant player's head against the table.
"Witt... gen... stein... Now, are we clear on the point? No? Witt..."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
M%*~%+&@&@+!. Did you him a live demonstration of sneak attack with a katar afterwards?I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
He tried. Failed due to concealment behind his infinite ego.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He tried. Failed due to concealment behind his infinite ego.M%*~%+&@&@+!. Did you him a live demonstration of sneak attack with a katar afterwards?I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
Surprise Round says "HI!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How long did he last?I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
This guy is infamous in our town for ruining not only games but gaming groups.
We survived him but he was the most disruptive player I've ever met.In the end we no longer could stand being in the same group with him. We tried, but aside from being a bad player he was an awful person, abusive to his girlfriend and disrespectful to other people. He treated me as I didn't exist and talked to Dalindra when he wanted to say something to me.
Also, our GM didn't know how to handle him.
Fortunately he was kicked.
My worst roleplaying experience ever.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have fond memories of the DC 15 to jump a 10' pit argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's really terrible Kileanna. I wouldn't wish a bad player on anyone and particukarly disrespectful jerks.
I'm glad I only play with friends. All of them are lovely. Except one jerk who didn't really participate and moaned and huffed when the dice didn't go his way. He eventually stopped coming at all.
I have fond memories of the DC 15 to jump a 10' pit argument.
Oh this was the first rules thread I had ever read! Wow time sure does fly. I was laughing so hard at the 'add 5 to the DC of everyone's long jump' bit and I still do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
:(
*offers hugs to Kileanna and Dalindra*
*Hugs back*
Thanks for the support, Rysky and Waifu.
We often play in a friends only environment but this guy just appeared from somewhere and we wanted to give him an opportunity. His girlfriend was a nice and sweet girl, very shy, but could have made a good roleplayer if he didn't hold her back all the time. I think we kept him around for too much time because of her.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's really terrible Kileanna. I wouldn't wish a bad player on anyone
I think you mean "bad person". :(
Yowza.
Somehow, I think it a holdover from a previous edition or maybe another game...but I'm not sure. I've heard 'Wizards must be Lawful' somewhere before, but I can't think of what that might be...
I don't recall it ever being a hard rule, but I do vaguely remember previous editions contrasting wizards vs sorcerers by saying that wizards were usually Lawful, while Sorcerers were usually Chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, at this point, my response would have been, "It's a shame your point of view is irrelevant."I had a player whose only reply was "That is your point of view, not mine".
Before Unchained Rogue's existance:
Concealment denying sneak attack? "That is your point of view, not mine".
The corebook says so? "That is your point of view, not mine".
I show him the exact line? "That is open to interpretation. Under my point of view, I can do sneak attacks".
I ask him to elaborate? "That is my point of view and you must respect it. I can do sneak attacks".
"Until you start giving me your damage numbers in accordance with my point of view, every attack you make will do no damage and heal the enemy the amount you give me."
|
|
Isn't it some misremembered hangover from 1970s D&D? Back then I think Devils were Chaotic too though, Gygax and Arneson had some funny ideas about respect for the law. I believe Elves were generally Lawful too.
While I can see arguments for Lawful Wizards handling the tedium of paperwork a little better than Chaotic ones, it is an unhappy rules restriction I have never played, nor would want to. My Primalist Wizard rather enjoys the random chance. My Harrower accepts that some things are beyond one's control.