More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:51 pm

Cielingcat wrote:I just realized it's been so long since I've played D&D that I actually forget where the rules on general bonus feats are.

Monster Manual p301, I think.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:04 am

Jerry wrote:I don't think that you're going to convince them. Many D&D designers and groups do not give a rat's ass about game balance, only if the concept looks "kewl" on paper. Not to mention that all but the most rules-intensive of players consistently play-test material. Many gaming groups that I've met don't want to spend hours testing rules inconsistencies; they just want to sit down and play, right out of the box.

I never could understand why they complain when someone points something like that out? It's like getting mad at the minesweeper for checking for mines and warning where the mines are before you send you people through the field.

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:50 am

Leress wrote: I never could understand why they complain when someone points something like that out? It's like getting mad at the minesweeper for checking for mines and warning where the mines are before you send you people through the field.

Say it with me: Sacred Cows

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:24 am

Jerry wrote:
Leress wrote: I never could understand why they complain when someone points something like that out? It's like getting mad at the minesweeper for checking for mines and warning where the mines are before you send you people through the field.
Say it with me: Sacred Cows

That really doesn't apply to the thread about adding four bloody words to a document to help remove abuse of the rule. Sacred Cows are more on the line of removing certain conventions of the game (Vancian casting, etc)

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:33 am

Leress wrote:That really doesn't apply to the thread about adding four bloody words to a document to help remove abuse of the rule. Sacred Cows are more on the line of removing certain conventions of the game (Vancian casting, etc)

Sorry, I misinterpreted the conversation. I meant to say that they don't like the idea that it's a big of a problem as squirrelloid makes it out to be.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:35 am

Yeah, it's somehow soo little of a problem, that actually putting in the four words leads to the game being a legal document of immense size (see the second to last post).

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:37 am

Well, the rogues-with-feats thing isn't really a problem, more a way of helping to bring them up to speed with the other real classes and fixing existing problems with feats (ie getting perfect TWF and skipping the bullshit requirements when TWF itself should have worked like perfect TWF does).

Oh, and causing hilarity when a rogue picks Gape of the Serpent, Disjunctive Eye and the one that lets you create sandstorms with your wings (that the rogue doesn't happen to have).

I'm still looking for other awesome ones that make no sense, too.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:40 am

But to a fanboi the rules are perfect. Fixing them is clearly impossible. Those four words are an assault on their beliefs, hence the insane resistance to changes that won't change how they play the game one bit.

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:43 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:But to a fanboi the rules are perfect. Fixing them is clearly impossible. Those four words are an assault on their beliefs, hence the insane resistance to changes that won't change how they play the game one bit.

I don't really see the point in trying to correct them, right or wrong. If they enjoy the game despite having some imperfections, fine with them. If they don't enjoy it, then they have nobody to blame but themselves (or the rules!).

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:45 am

what's REALLY funny is that it has been shown that there is no default assumtion with bonus feats RIGHT THERE IN THE THREAD. the monk says it works one way, the fighter says it works the other, the rouge is silent.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:11 am

name_here wrote:what's REALLY funny is that it has been shown that there is no default assumtion with bonus feats RIGHT THERE IN THE THREAD. the monk says it works one way, the fighter says it works the other, the rouge is silent.

Frank has shown how it works, and I used to know, but I've forgotten where in the SRD the full rules are.

DragonChild · Post by **DragonChild** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:13 am

Feats

The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:20 am

Thanks.

Jacob_Orlove · Post by **Jacob_Orlove** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:53 am

Koumei wrote:I'm still looking for other awesome ones that make no sense, too.

Ooh, you should totally take the feat that lets you telepathically sense everyone within 100' (like a super blindsense). It's a nice feat to have, but getting telepathy to meet the prerequisite usually requires a level in Mindbender.

Edit: is there an Extra Wild Shape feat somewhere? You might be able to combine that with some of the Epic Wild Shape feats, so that you can turn into, say, Colossal Animals and Dragons (and nothing else).

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:54 am

Koumei wrote:Oh, and causing hilarity when a rogue picks Gape of the Serpent, Disjunctive Eye and the one that lets you create sandstorms with your wings (that the rogue doesn't happen to have).

What the fuck?
Would it look like this:

http://www.bili.org/artist/admirations/avery02.jpg

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun May 25, 2008 10:04 pm

Jacob_Orlove wrote:
Koumei wrote:I'm still looking for other awesome ones that make no sense, too.
Ooh, you should totally take the feat that lets you telepathically sense everyone within 100' (like a super blindsense). It's a nice feat to have, but getting telepathy to meet the prerequisite usually requires a level in Mindbender.

Actually, the feat, Mindsight, gives you a blinsense like ability (with a few perks like automatically knowing their type and int score) within the range of your telepathy.

So ignoring the pre-reqs to get the feet would pretty much suck.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:20 pm

virgileso wrote:http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... FeatOption

Ah, actively arguing against fixing rules.

I gotta say, those guys just piss me off. It's one thing to say that the DM can disallow broken aspects of the game. It's another to say that you don't want to fix a loophole by adding a very simple fix to an ability, simply because the DM can disallow it.

The DM should be the last line of defense, not the first, and should serve to curtain bugs that the designers missed. Not to fix a known bug... well that's just damn stupid.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:51 am

I wish rule zero wasn't in the DMG or anything. Or that a specific design goal of 3.P was to minimise the need for GM fiat or clarity. Then people would shut up. That would be useful.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Tue May 27, 2008 11:01 am

Jerry wrote:I don't really see the point in trying to correct them, right or wrong.

They're pissing on attempts to fix problems. Sounds like a reason to me.

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:08 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote: They're pissing on attempts to fix problems. Sounds like a reason to me.

So what are you going to do? Force them to accept your help?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue May 27, 2008 6:29 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Jerry wrote:I don't really see the point in trying to correct them, right or wrong.
They're pissing on attempts to fix problems. Sounds like a reason to me.

Since the only reason that anyone cares what they have to say about this or any other topic is that they promised to come in and fix problems, isn't this just a reason to walk away in disgust? If they say explicitly that they have no intention of fixing problems after all, then all that means is that the cake is a lie and there's no reason to care about their opinions or statements.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Username17

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:34 pm

Sorry, can't resist:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
- Bush

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:46 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Jerry wrote:I don't really see the point in trying to correct them, right or wrong.
They're pissing on attempts to fix problems. Sounds like a reason to me.
Since the only reason that anyone cares what they have to say about this or any other topic is that they promised to come in and fix problems, isn't this just a reason to walk away in disgust? If they say explicitly that they have no intention of fixing problems after all, then all that means is that the cake is a lie and there's no reason to care about their opinions or statements.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Username17

To be fair, it's not Paizo employees saying these things (AFAIK; haven't checked thier profiles for aliases). It seems to just be random fanboys posting in a thread Buhlman hasn't replied to.

K · Post by K » Wed May 28, 2008 5:16 am

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: To be fair, it's not Paizo employees saying these things (AFAIK; haven't checked thier profiles for aliases). It seems to just be random fanboys posting in a thread Buhlman hasn't replied to.

You can't see people's aliases in their profile.

As an additional added note, Jason thinks that he's a 19th level character with an Int of 17.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:42 am

Where is that from?