| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Well, you know, you have to be disciplined to study magic like a wizard does. And as Monk alignment restrictions show, it is philosophically impossible for chaotic people to be disciplined.
*Checks old 3.5 manual*
Alignment: Overall, wizards show a slight tendency toward law over chaos because the study of magic rewards those who are disciplined. Illusionists and transmuters, however, are masters of deception and change, respectively. They favor chaos over law.
Oh yeah, I remember. 3.5 rulebooks give recommendations for roleplay. I personally prefer to leave it blank as there's always exceptions. (Unless it's a monk or paladin or something) If they used to play 3.5, and misremembered some stuff I could see the confusion occuring.
It's just a recommendation though. Nothing more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still love the following from an older GM.
1. Paladins cannot flank, act before any enemy they want to attack, and couldn't use sneak attack at all. Honorable combat and all that.
2. Since feather fall slows your momentum arrows lose all of theirs before they hit you if its up.
3. You don't get str x1.5 or a bonus on power attack for 2 handed weapons since they are meant to be wielded that way.
Paladin of Cayden Cailean....
With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.
Don't really see what the new codes changes about that scenario...Paladin of Cayden Cailean....With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.
The fact that the rules actually contradict themselves which is kind of neat because the whole drunken loute of a Paladin is something I would never have expected to be mechanically supported.
|
The fact that the rules actually contradict themselves which is kind of neat because the whole drunken loute of a Paladin is something I would never have expected to be mechanically supported.Don't really see what the new codes changes about that scenario...Paladin of Cayden Cailean....With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.
How do they contradict (what codes would enable this is what I should have asked)?
| 1 person 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".
LOL, thats why I game with weekend warriors, never social justice warriors.
I've had a few monster identification issues; its super hard to identify a great wyrm red dragon, no way a commoner could ever manage it, but its super easy to idenify a low CR critter from only the rarest parts of the dark tapestry.
I've had a few monster identification issues; its super hard to identify a great wyrm red dragon, no way a commoner could ever manage it, but its super easy to idenify a low CR critter from only the rarest parts of the dark tapestry.
Yeah, I definitely think on the fly adjustments to monsters for rarity is a smart thing to do. Same for Knowledge Local when you visit an area you've never been before. I'll presume a certain level of town criers and international news so that the exceptionally well informed in Andoran know the names of some senior officials in Cheliax, but you're going to have a hard time getting more than that until you've been there and spent some time to acclimate to local news.
How do they contradict (what codes would enable this is what I should have asked)?The fact that the rules actually contradict themselves which is kind of neat because the whole drunken loute of a Paladin is something I would never have expected to be mechanically supported.Don't really see what the new codes changes about that scenario...Paladin of Cayden Cailean....With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.
Off the top of my head, Torag's Paladin code allows lying.
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".
LOL, thats why I game with weekend warriors, never social justice warriors.
I've had a few monster identification issues; its super hard to identify a great wyrm red dragon, no way a commoner could ever manage it, but its super easy to idenify a low CR critter from only the rarest parts of the dark tapestry.
I think the identification thing makes more sense when you put it into context of the DC being for useful info.
For example, any commoner will know that it's a great red dragon on sight, but only people knowledgable about them will know what his strengths and weaknesses are, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus a CR 2 small slug-thing with tentacles probably doesn't have much in the way of weaknesses to know even if it crawled out of the most horrific places in the cosmos; it's a small slug thing, you can just squish it.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, thats why I game with weekend warriors, never social justice warriors.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".
...well, how's that for a non sequitur?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a GM rule the reason I didn't fall and crush the dragon after I turned into an elephant(wildshape) was because I had flown above it and reached my apogee so I wouldn't fall until the next round. On it's turn the dragon flew out from under me.
He just wanted his dragon to survive. Until that point I'd been dealing with it on my own, since I was the only one that could even remotely keep up with it in the air over the town.
I found some good ones here.
Bad link, that's not the FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...well, how's that for a non sequitur?
I mean, one of the people in my regular group is literally a social worker, and he's cool, so I can recommend that.
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.well thats one way to fix caster martial discrepancy
That was a whole different can of worms with him....
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.
I would of kicked him... In the head.. repeatedly.
I had a DM decide that heat and fire damage where different. Had cast fire shield. Dm said I still took the damage because of the heat. since the spell said it only protected you from fire damage. I was just so taken aback by that I couldn't think of a response.
(I think it relates to 1st edition wording on fire shield which said fire and heat damage)
I had a DM decide that heat and fire damage where different. Had cast fire shield. Dm said I still took the damage because of the heat. since the spell said it only protected you from fire damage. I was just so taken aback by that I couldn't think of a response.
(I think it relates to 1st edition wording on fire shield which said fire and heat damage)
What spell does heat damage? The only source of heat """damage""" I know of is environmental.
He was saying even though I was was immune to fire damage I would still take the heat damage from the fire. (I think it might have been environmental but the heat was still radiating from fire.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
An argument I use to point out flaws in bringing physics into reality is the time-traveling rogue.
The logic is this:
- A second level rogue can take the stand up rogue talent to stand up from prone as a free action.
- Dropping Prone is a free action.
- You can take any number of free actions per round.
- A 2 meter tall character's head moves 2m every time he falls or stands.
- According to the theory of relativity, an entity moving faster than light travels backwards in time.
- The speed of Light is approximately 300 million meters per second.
- One Round is 6 Seconds
Math: 300,000,000 meters/second times 6 seconds per round gives 1,800,000,000 meters light travels in a combat round.
1,800,000,000 meters/round divided by 2 meters traveled each time the rogue stands up or falls down gives 900,000,000 free actions needed to definitively travel approximately as fast as light.
Of course, the above isn't flawless (for example, it assumes the rogue is in a vacuum without a need to breathe, or a GM to use the "reasonable limits" clause to say 900,000,001 is too many free actions) but its fun to think about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An argument I use to point out flaws in bringing physics into reality is the time-traveling rogue.
The logic is this:
From all of this, we can infer that if a 2m tall second level rogue with the rogue talent "stand up" falls prone and stands up more than 9 hundred million times in a round, said rogue travels backwards in time.
- A second level rogue can take the stand up rogue talent to stand up from prone as a free action.
- Dropping Prone is a free action.
- You can take any number of free actions per round.
- A 2 meter tall character's head moves 2m every time he falls or stands.
- According to the theory of relativity, an entity moving faster than light travels backwards in time.
- The speed of Light is approximately 300 million meters per second.
- One Round is 6 Seconds
Math: 300,000,000 meters/second times 6 seconds per round gives 1,800,000,000 meters light travels in a combat round.
1,800,000,000 meters/round divided by 2 meters traveled each time the rogue stands up or falls down gives 900,000,000 free actions needed to definitively travel approximately as fast as light.Of course, the above isn't flawless (for example, it assumes the rogue is in a vacuum without a need to breathe, or a GM to use the "reasonable limits" clause to say 900,000,001 is too many free actions) but its fun to think about.
Reminds me of the peasant rail gun. I approve.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hands down the story of Rolf the Dhampir, for whom it was non-evil to drink blood from an unwilling creature for fun, but for whom it was definitely evil to drink blood from a willing creature for benefit.
This was the main event that deeply seeded and cemented my hatred of the alignment system as written, and "objective morality" in general.
Hands down the story of Rolf the Dhampir, for whom it was non-evil to drink blood from an unwilling creature for fun, but for whom it was definitely evil to drink blood from a willing creature for benefit.
This was the main event that deeply seeded and cemented my hatred of the alignment system as written, and "objective morality" in general.
Having storytelled Vampire:the Masquerade more times than I can recall this sounds too familiar.
It happened too often that a player failed miserably trying to feed, to cover it up they would do something terrible that many times only made it worse and it escalated until they completely messed up and killed many people, started fires only to cover the deaths and such. Then I'd make them roll for humanity loss and they'd start complaining on how they hadn't done anything wrong, they were only trying to feed and to uphold the Masquerade.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have fond memories of the DC 15 to jump a 10' pit argument.
I keep flipping back and forth in my mind between "that's dumb" and "that makes sense".
On a similar note, I remember someone arguing that a druid wild shaped into a Large manta ray:
(1) should be able to swim through 2' deep water because manta rays are flat, and
(2) should also be able to bite a creature flying 10' off the ground because a Large creature occupies a 10' x 10' x 10' cube.
I have fond memories of the DC 15 to jump a 10' pit argument.I keep flipping back and forth in my mind between "that's dumb" and "that makes sense".
On a similar note, I remember someone arguing that a druid wild shaped into a Large manta ray:
(1) should be able to swim through 2' deep water because manta rays are flat, and
(2) should also be able to bite a creature flying 10' off the ground because a Large creature occupies a 10' x 10' x 10' cube.
Hey I want my cake and I want to eat it....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cake is a lie.
Well, you know, you have to be disciplined to study magic like a wizard does. And as Monk alignment restrictions show, it is philosophically impossible for chaotic people to be disciplined.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.
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 think it came from the same alternate universe that most alignment restrictions come from. As Ventnor points out, it's not hard to come up with justifications for these sort of things. I can even see a justification for the OP's example:
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?
Paladins and monks are both very orderly and culturally-specific classes, concerned with their culturual integrity, as exhibited by their Lawful requirements. And so they just don't mix. Also, something something discipline...
Frankly, I'm 100% confident that if these restrictions were RAW -- and especially if they had been handed down from old school D&D as so many of these things are -- we'd have mobs of traditionalists arguing that "Of course that's the way it is, the only way I want to play the game, totally makes sense, stop rocking the boat!"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
That one really took the (chocolate) cake for me. Just...just chew on that one for a while. lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't really see what the new codes changes about that scenario...Paladin of Cayden Cailean....With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.
Paladin of Kurgess. They get along with the caydanites very well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
That one really took the (chocolate) cake for me. Just...just chew on that one for a while. lol.
Chewing on it is *exactly* what I don't want to do. ;)
I nominate 'the unwritten rule of Metaphorical Hands of Effort' personally, the point where I officially decided as a GM to disregard all FAQratta by default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
That one really took the (chocolate) cake for me. Just...just chew on that one for a while. lol.
There's a spell that exists to turn your piss into the most delicious beer or wine you've ever tasted, so it's not that far-fetched.I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
That one really took the (chocolate) cake for me. Just...just chew on that one for a while. lol.
Bwahahaha!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bwahahaha!There's a spell that exists to turn your piss into the most delicious beer or wine you've ever tasted, so it's not that far-fetched.I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
That one really took the (chocolate) cake for me. Just...just chew on that one for a while. lol.
Not to mention heroes' feces.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a character once who liked to pass around his personal beer flask, bragging that he'd made it himself when they said it tasted good.
Never got around to telling anyone that he made it each morning by relieving himself, pouring dirt into the flask, and then casting Enhance Water over it.
(2) should also be able to bite a creature flying 10' off the ground because a Large creature occupies a 10' x 10' x 10' cube.
I wish I could find the thread but I think once someone was arguing that vampires had functional reproductive organs, since by RAW it didn't say they couldn't have children. Then people just argued about biology of dead things and talking about if skeletons could reproduce.
Edit: Here it is!
Funnily enough they also argue about the definition of immortality. Haven't thoroughly read it through but probably some laughs there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could find the thread but I think once someone was arguing that vampires had functional reproductive organs, since by RAW it didn't say they couldn't have children. Then people just argued about biology of dead things and talking about if skeletons could reproduce.
I remember that one!
About 10 years ago on a D&D Meet Up event, a GM tried to make the claim that cure light wounds and other beneficial touch spells needed an actual attack roll on allies AND self-healing and it was possible to miss because in combat someone wouldn't stop trying to defend themselves even for a brief moment to be healed by an ally or oneself, citing some piece of weird logic/argument/example of some cleric daisy chain of healing or something.
I tried to be polite and say that would be an "ok" houserule if everyone in the table is cool with it but it would be rare and he's free to rule however he'd like with his normal group, but when he insisted that's how 3rd edition beneficial touch spells works, the whole party rebelled with "are you crazy?" and citing the core rulebook on him "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."
In the end I still got no idea if it sunk in on him that he was wrong.
I wish I could find the thread but I think once someone was arguing that vampires had functional reproductive organs, since by RAW it didn't say they couldn't have children. Then people just argued about biology of dead things and talking about if skeletons could reproduce.I remember that one!
This was the thread. I'm the one who elevated the discussion to the next logical subject, "Can vampires poop?"
|
|
About 10 years ago on a D&D Meet Up event, a GM tried to make the claim that cure light wounds and other beneficial touch spells needed an actual attack roll on allies AND self-healing and it was possible to miss because in combat someone wouldn't stop trying to defend themselves even for a brief moment to be healed by an ally or oneself, citing some piece of weird logic/argument/example of some cleric daisy chain of healing or something.
I tried to be polite and say that would be an "ok" houserule if everyone in the table is cool with it but it would be rare and he's free to rule however he'd like with his normal group, but when he insisted that's how 3rd edition beneficial touch spells works, the whole party rebelled with "are you crazy?" and citing the core rulebook on him "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."
In the end I still got no idea if it sunk in on him that he was wrong.
I do allow my players the choice whenever they use spells like that. There's a small chance you'll miss, but you also have a chance of getting a critical!
I might modify this to simply rolling the d20 when you cast, no chance of missing, just to try for a crit, will have to mull it over...
|
|
Ah, Thankies ^w^Don't really see what the new codes changes about that scenario...Paladin of Cayden Cailean....With some of the newer Paladin codes its actually all but a technicality that you can't have one.Paladin of Kurgess. They get along with the caydanites very well.
Hmm, reading it over they do seem like really disciplined jolly monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off the top of my head, Torag's Paladin code allows lying.
No. it allows misleading.
"Where are the other dwarves?"
"I saw them heading south" I KNOW they're going to north but they did go south as then went from my living room into the kitchen and that was the last time i saw them.
Paladin codes don't override the regular paladin restrictions, they're guidelines for what kind of paladin a deity should have. ?(remember there's more than one lawful good answer)
I recall a thread where some weirdo tried to make the argument that you could use purify food and water on fecal matter to turn it back into nourishing food again. ;-)
No, because then your cantrips would be emulating a higher level spell, Heroes Feast.