The best topics for derailment

[jpreem]

So what would be the top ten topics that when mentioned will derail the thread.
Somewhere in the top there should be the more-than-humble base class MONK :smallbiggrin:, also alignment discussions. Hmm maybe also Wizard - spawning an endless thread of argument _ " My wizard can beat up everything ever concieved and also the DM and its father and WIN the game", and " No my Wizard (or fighter or MONK) can beat up your wizard".
So how would you populate the list.
from 1 to 10

[Kurald Galain]

I'm sorry, citizen, this list is above your security clearance.

[hamishspence]

So what would be the top ten topics that when mentioned will derail the thread.
Somewhere in the top there should be the more-than-humble base class MONK :smallbiggrin:, also alignment discussions. Hmm maybe also Wizard - spawning an endless thread of argument _ " My wizard can beat up everything ever concieved and also the DM and its father and WIN the game", and " No my Wizard (or fighter or MONK) can beat up your wizard".
So how would you populate the list.
from 1 to 10

Within alignment discussions, mentioning what BoED says will almost inevitably lead to a derailment along the lines of "What BoED says about ravages, afflictions, and poisons, as well as its Sanctify the Wicked spell, automatically make it a bad source for alignment, therefore invalid for any discussion"

[dsmiles]

Optimizing and Role-Playing are mutually exclusive. This should be at least in the top 3. If not number 1.

[hamishspence]

Mentions of how a different edition handles an issue under discussion may have a good chance of leading to edition wars.

[Ozymandias9]

Any thread that starts by discussing elements of both role playing and char op, regardless of whether or not they are presented as competing goals and even if presented merely as a matter of taste, will result in a derailment to discuss the finer points of the Stormwind fallacy.

[Morph Bark]

I'd mention Pun-Pun, but it is usually mentioned at the start of the thread and then discarded really quickly by getting back to the point. I haven't seen many threads derailed completely on their first page.

[hamishspence]

Physics discussions sometimes derail threads about how magic works.

[dsmiles]

mmmmm...physics...

[Thefurmonger]

"so, why don't people like TOB?"

[Kaun]

"But kicking the baby saved a bazilion lives so i dont think i should have become evil!"

[hamishspence]

"But kicking the baby saved a bazilion lives so i dont think i should have become evil!"

And when DMs favour slow alignment change, but strictly enforce falling for evil acts, it's:

"But kicking the baby saved a bazilion lives so I don't think it should have counted as an evil act!"

But that's "alignment discussions in general".

[Thefurmonger]

Oh right, also don't forget:

"Should this Paladin fall?"

and

"Was XXXX morally justified?"

[Cespenar]

"Hilarious! Someone should stat that!"

[dsmiles]

"Hilarious! Someone should stat that!"

Oooh...good one.

Alternatively: "Someone should stat that so we can kill it."
Or: "Not everything needs stats." (This is also my personal opinion.)

[Morph Bark]

You know, I honestly wonder how this thread will be derailed, if ever. :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

By not posting specific ways to derail threads, but talking about something else. :smallamused:

[Stompy]

By not posting specific ways to derail threads, but talking about something else. :smallamused:

Hey guys check it out I updated my avatar! :smallbiggrin:

...wait, what's this about thread derailment?

[Morph Bark]

By not posting specific ways to derail threads, but talking about something else. :smallamused:

Won't that effectively be talking about thread derailment though, considering you're talking about a topic that derailed the thread? :smallamused:

[potatocubed]

Can my monk take a level in warblade without losing his lawful alignment or will that stop me from roleplaying? How about in 4e?

[subject42]

Bears.

Bears will derail everything. Especially when you start trying to stack them.

For example, how many bears can you fit into a Multiclassed Paladin/Monk thread?

Can a bear be pun-pun?

[Androgeus]

"so, why don't people like TOB?"

Or asking for build advice for a fighter/monk/paladin and saying TOB isn't allowed

Edit:

Bears.

Bears will derail everything. Especially when you start trying to stack them.
I really can't bear it when that happens. my puns are so bear

[The Glyphstone]

I'd use my clairsentience powers to divine the answer, but everyone knows that psionics are overpowered.

[dsmiles]

I'd use my clairsentience powers to divine the answer, but everyone knows that psionics are overpowered.

Psionics is not overpowered! :smallbiggrin:

How about mentioning the tier system, that could potentially be a dangerous topic.

[The Glyphstone]

'Should players be allowed to refluff'?

Or, the rules of stacking bonuses. After all, everyone knows you can't stack a Paladin and a Monk, because they'll fall.

[Sliver]

The weather.

[Tyndmyr]

Can a bear be pun-pun?

Well, obviously, pun-pun can be a bear. And why wouldn't he want to be a bear?

[Kurald Galain]

Well, obviously, pun-pun can be a bear. And why wouldn't he want to be a bear?

He could even be a bear-bear! With bears on top!

[jpreem]

Love the things so far. I was considering a bear in my first post but i couldnt .... you know ....
Also lots of stuff falling in alignment thread.
Furmonger - I Really love this - "So what makes peaople dislike TOB"
Seeing the thread in the forum gave me the main push for this thread here.
Also hmm might I add or complement - a generic XXXXX is underpovered/overpovered!

[strider24seven]

Bears.

Bears will derail everything. Especially when you start trying to stack them.

For example, how many bears can you fit into a Multiclassed Paladin/Monk thread?

Can a bear be pun-pun?

I was going to mention this, because it usualy bears mentioning, but after thinking about it... it's bearly worth mentioning.

Seriously, though, any mention of a flask rogue will cause the thread to degenerate quickly enough.

[jiriku]

After all, everyone knows you can't stack a Paladin and a Monk, because they'll fall.

Bah-DOOM-clack!

You, sir, deserve a rimshot.

[Tyndmyr]

Any mention of DMPCs.

Or, <diety of choice> help us, GNS.

[Ravens_cry]

The Ways and Means for Perfecting the Genocide of the Felis puella.
Alignments: What they Mean and How I Know.
Should this Paladin be Gravitationally Attracted to a Surface Below Them?
Alignments: How they Suck.
Monks, I Made Them Not Suck Now!*
*By Taking 19 Levels of Wizard.
My DMPC wasn't So Bad.
Alignment, Anything to Do With Alignment.
Fighters are Stupid and Should Never Be Played.

[strider24seven]

Monks, I Made Them Not Suck Now!*
*By Taking 19 Levels of Wizard.


Only if it's Carmendine monk. Otherwise you have too much MAD*

*Another major derailment topic

[Greenish]

The Ways and Means for Perfecting the Genocide of the Felis puella.
Alignments: What they Mean and How I Know.
Should this Paladin be Gravitationally Attracted to a Surface Below Them?
Alignments: How they Suck.
Monks, I Made Them Not Suck Now!*
*By Taking 19 Levels of Wizard.
My DMPC wasn't So Bad.
Alignment, Anything to Do With Alignment.
Fighters are Stupid and Should Never Be Played.The Trueness of Kobold Dragons.

[Volthawk]

Seriously, though, any mention of a flask rogue will cause the thread to degenerate quickly enough.

A what now?


Or, <diety of choice> help us, GNS.

See above.

[Kurald Galain]

Only if it's Carmendine monk. Otherwise you have too much MAD*

* Masterful Altercation Derailment?

[Greenish]

Comparing editions 3.5 and 4.

[Kiren]

Quoting this?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

[Greenish]

Quoting this?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePageThat derails people, not threads.

[Vantharion]

Class Tiers/Race Tiers
Rules Vs Fun [When and when not to bend the rules for sake of sensibility or fun] Also describable as 'What should I Houserule?'
'The D&D World is TOO generic'
Edition Wars [D&D 9.0 is better than the rest]
Paladins Falling
Lawful Good = 'Its a class feature'
"Here, I homebrewed a fix for this BAD class" [This works even better if it is a bad homebrew fix]
Those are major culprits.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh, oh!

"What counts as railroading?"

[Fax Celestis]

Won't that effectively be talking about thread derailment though, considering you're talking about a topic that derailed the thread? :smallamused:

Plz no meta.

[Lysander]

RAW vs. RAI arguments.

Mentioning enslaving an infinite number of Solars.

[jpreem]

Maybe a mention of truenamer?

[Tyndmyr]

A what now?



See above.

GNS is a poorly conceived attempt to slot all gamers into one of three types, and demand that rpgs be designed to fit one of them. Despite this, and a marked inability to correctly use basic words in the english language, it managed to get a few converts, that go to great lengths to repeat the same arguments over and over every time it comes up.

We must never speak of this again, lest we attract their attention. It may already be too late.

[Sliver]

CW/GNS Samurais!

[Amphetryon]

CW/GNS Samurais!

I see your CW/GNS Samurai, and raise you a CW/GNS Samurai Paladin with VoP! :smallwink:

[Tyndmyr]

I see your CW/GNS Samurai, and raise you a CW/GNS Samurai Paladin with VoP! :smallwink:

Is he morally justified as a DMPC?

[Balain]

".... is way better in 3.5 than 4E because...." or "That's way 4e was made to improve..... in 3.5"

[lesser_minion]

A what now?

It's a rogue build that throws things, basically. I believe the idea is that there's an ambiguity in the way SA interacts with splash weapons that lets you do something crazy if your DM interprets it a particular way.


See above.

A game design theory. In essence, it takes three things that all roleplaying games blend by definition and claims that any game that tries to blend them is a steaming pile of garbage. Elements of the role playing game community are critical of this for some reason.

[TooManyBadgers]

It's a rogue build that throws things, basically. I believe the idea is that there's an ambiguity in the way SA interacts with splash weapons that lets you do something crazy if your DM interprets it a particular way.I wouldn't call it an ambiguity. Alchemical weapons are ranged touch attacks, which are perfectly legal to sneak attack with.

It's more just the stupidity of specifically penetrating a vulnerable spot with a molotov cocktail.

[lesser_minion]

I wouldn't call it an ambiguity. Alchemical weapons are ranged touch attacks, which are perfectly legal to sneak attack with.

I was under the impression that that wasn't the issue, considering that this build was supposedly good enough to push the class into a higher tier on its own.

[Boci]

I was under the impression that that wasn't the issue, considering that this build was supposedly good enough to push the class into a higher tier on its own.

I think the build gained some bad rep because some people insisted that creatures taking splash damage would also suffer SA. But that has long been clarified: no attack roll, no SA. Apart from that it is a rogue who can hit its enemy with all their attacks, as far as I I know.



It's more just the stupidity of specifically penetrating a vulnerable spot with a molotov cocktail.

Is it really that much more stupid than a halfling with a dagger getting SA against any creature larger then huge?

[lesser_minion]

Is it really that much more stupid than a halfling with a dagger getting SA against any creature larger then huge?

That's actually listed as an example of when a sneak attack wouldn't be possible, IIRC.

[Boci]

Rogues don't get sneak attacks if they are unable to see a vital spot or unable to attack it.

See the second part of my post. That is a single line of fluff with no actual rules to implement it.


That's actually listed as an example of when a sneak attack wouldn't be possible, IIRC.

I am pretty sure the rules in 3.5 were never that clear, just a single line with no actual examples. You may be thinking of 2E, which was a bit more clear, but then again maybe I'm the one mistaken.

P.S. Yay, we're derailing the derail thread.

[lesser_minion]

See the second part of my post. That is a single line of fluff with no actual rules to implement it.

Well, here's the exact paragraph:




A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Seems both clear-cut and non-fluff to me.

[Amphetryon]

Is he morally justified as a DMPC?

No, the CW/GNS VoP Samurai/Paladin is the DM's girlfriend's character.


Seems both clear-cut and non-fluff to me

I can think of lots of reasons and situations why a Small character can reach the vitals on a Huge or larger monster. I saw nothing in your quoted passage to grant any blanket immunity based on size.

[Boci]

Seems both clear-cut and non-fluff to me.

Huh? Where are the rules for determining whether or not I can reach a creatures vital organs (assuming they have them)? No where. The only clear cut rules are no sneak attacking creatures without vital organs and no SA if the target has concealment.

[Falconer]

I see all of your suggestions, and raise you one:



Miko.:miko:

[lesser_minion]

I can think of lots of reasons and situations why a Small character can reach the vitals on a Huge or larger monster. I saw nothing in your quoted passage to grant any blanket immunity based on size.

It's not a blanket immunity based on size. The DM is required to adjudicate it by common sense. Because different cases are going to be different, and actual guidelines would take up the entire rest of the book.

What is clear-cut is that the DM must make this decision. It cannot be dismissed as a non-rule because the designers didn't want to spend the next 200 pages discussing whether or not you can stab something in the vitals.

[Greenish]

It's not a blanket immunity based on size. The DM is expected to adjudicate it by common sense.Ie. ignore it. The game doesn't need more enemies immune to SA.

Besides, "adjudicate by common sense" is quite far from "clear-cut".

[Stompy]

"so, why don't people like TOB?"

+1, if only because there is a derailed thread already going.

The best part is that is that it derails into many different places off the track, such as (but not limited to):

-DM unfamiliarity with books issue
-The tier system (or why most core melee sucks)
-Why spells are awesome (and can't replace manuevers)
-rollplay vs. roleplay (see: Re-fluffing a ToB character and saying it's a fighter)
-Aminu "vs." western-style fantasy worlds
-"It's broken like psionics!"
-Weapon Specialization is NOT
and my current favorite- A disscussion on 3.5 artwork (and why most Mialee artwork in 3.5 sucks) that's going on in this current ToB thread.

[Boci]

It's not a blanket immunity based on size. The DM is required to adjudicate it by common sense. Because different cases are going to be different, and actual guidelines would take up the entire rest of the book.

To me, thats seems more like a DM using rule 0 to turn a single line of fluff into an actual houserule than actual RAW/I, but each to their own.


Ie. ignore it. The game doesn't need more enemies immune to SA.

Besides, "adjudicate by common sense" is quite far from "clear-cut".

Agreed on both acounts. Plus such a rule will lead to a lot of protesting from the player whose a rogue if they have an explanation for how they are SA-ing and the DM doesn't accept it.

[Greenish]

To me, thats seems more like a DM using rule 0 to turn a single line of fluff into an actual houserule than actual RAW/I, but each to their own.I always thought it meant situations like, say, a giant kraken attacking a ship, where you can only reach the tentacles. (I seem to recall there being specific rules for attacking some critter's tentacles.)

[lesser_minion]

To me, thats seems more like a DM using rule 0 to turn a single line of fluff into an actual houserule than actual RAW/I, but each to their own.

It's not fluff. It's explicitly "if the DM feels that you can't reach an opponent's vitals, you can't sneak attack it". There are, for future reference, clear rules on how tall a creature is for any given size category, and on how high you can reach.

Fluff is not presented in the middle of a paragraph explaining exceptions to a rule (did you also ignore cover when playing 3.0?)

As for complaints about this somehow being a balance issue... ranged weapons, anyone?

[Greenish]

It's not fluff. It's explicitly "if the DM feels that you can't reach an opponent's vitals, you can't sneak attack it". There are, for future reference, clear rules on how tall a creature is for any given size category, and on how high you can reach.But not on what exactly counts vital enough to be effected by SA. (Generic innards? Just spleen? Major arteries?)

[Boci]

It's not fluff. It's explicitly "if the DM feels that you can't reach an opponent's vitals, you can't sneak attack it". There are, for future reference, clear rules on how tall a creature is for any given size category, and on how high you can reach.

Fluff is not presented in the middle of a paragraph explaining exceptions to a rule.

This is just your opinion. Nowhere does it say "The DM may rule". It could just as easily be a reference to a rejected 2E style back stab rule that was intended to be removed but was missed.

[Amphetryon]

As for complaints about this somehow being a balance issue... ranged weapons, anyone?Clearly, you've never had someone try to debate 3-dimensional geometry and Pythagorean Theorem to explain why the attack with a Shortbow did - or did not - qualify as being 'within thirty feet' of the Blue Dragon's lung from a given square.

[Saph]

In reverse order:


10. GNS theory - Though 90%+ of gamers couldn't care less about the subject, the efforts of a small minority ensure that any thread mentioning it will turn into a broken record.

9. DMPCs/Railroading - Doesn't always derail, but it's a subject everyone has strong opinions on.

8. Monks - It's odd that the monk class, out of all the others in the PHB, should be such a favoured hotspot, but it seems people just never get tired of arguing about them.

7. Should this paladin fall? - Bonus points if it involves a baby. Extra bonus points if it involves Miko.

6. How My Houserules Balance 3.5 - Five posters will immediately jump in saying "no they don't".

5. Alignment - Either arguing about whether a character is Evil or not, or arguing about whether the alignment system is Evil or not, this just never goes away.

4. Fighter vs Wizard - Or caster vs non-caster. Has an almost magnetic ability to drag posters in, even ones who really should know better.

3. Edition Warz - At least this one isn't as bad as it was. For a while 3.5 vs 4e flamewars derailed practically the entire forum.

2. Optimising vs Roleplaying - Has at least a 90% chance of causing a derail, and at least a 50% chance of leading into Roland administering a threadlock.

And finally, the number one derailer (you should be able to guess this one by process of elimination);

1. Tome of Battle - It's the ultimate derail topic because it brings in literally everything else. The power aspects bring in arguments about optimising vs roleplaying. The flavour aspects bring in arguments about refluffing and mechanics. The mechanical aspects bring in arguments about casters vs noncasters. The similarities (or lack of them) with 4e bring in edition wars. It's the perfect storm of forum arguments.

[lesser_minion]

This is just your opinion. Nowhere does it say "The DM may rule". It could just as easily be a reference to a rejected 2E style back stab rule that was intended to be removed but was missed.

I can present examples of other rules that also require the DM to adjudicate whether or not they apply (or, at least, rules that worked the exact same way when that rule was printed).

It is printed on the page, and it is not in a section where fluff text normally appears. It was even more obviously a rule when it was written, and it wasn't removed by the update. Therefore, unless you have errata saying to delete it, it's a rule, not a piece of fluff text or some artifact of some editing as you claim.

Its presence is certainly enough to debunk the post that started this discussion.

[Kurald Galain]

In reverse order:

My simulationist DM is railroading my monk with houseruled paladin code to fall because it violates his alignment to defeat an optimized fourth edition wizard. Can the TOB help me resolve this?

[Greenish]

Its presence is certainly enough to debunk the post that started this discussion.The acid vial rogue?

[lesser_minion]

The acid vial rogue?

The comment about it being unrealistic for a halfling to be able to stab huge creatures with a dagger, actually.

[Amphetryon]

The comment about it being unrealistic for a halfling to be able to stab huge creatures with a dagger, actually.

Especially if he's climbing it, riding it, flying, falling past it....

[lesser_minion]

Especially if he's climbing it, riding it, flying, falling past it....

Yes, there are cases when it's perfectly fine for the halfling to be able to sneak attack the cloud giant. I did not need to be reminded, and that is exactly why the game doesn't give a blanket immunity to larger creatures.

[9mm]

My simulationist DM is railroading my monk with houseruled paladin code to fall because it violates his alignment to defeat an optimized fourth edition wizard. Can the TOB help me resolve this?

... YES.
don't ask me how though.

[Keld Denar]

Oh come on...Krusk in a pimp cloak with a pimp hat on does NOT derail a thread...it awesomeifies it. Seriously...gaze ye upon his pimply awesomeness and be awed into the understanding that Krusk is a god amongst half-orcs.
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/compscoundrel_gallery/102037.jpg

[Greenish]

The comment about it being unrealistic for a halfling to be able to stab huge creatures with a dagger, actually.Stab the big arteries in the giant's legs?
[Edit]:
Oh come on...Krusk in a pimp cloak with a pimp hat onThat's not a hat, it's a 'do.

[Fayd]

Stab the big arteries in the giant's legs?
[Edit]:That's not a hat, it's a 'do.

And really, with their size, they've got to have a decent blood pressure... if you can puncture a major artery or vein... Ack. Physics again.

[lesser_minion]

Stab the big arteries in the giant's legs?

Not particularly obvious where they are, I assume. And I'm pretty sure a giant isn't just a scaled-up human, at least not in D&D.

[Volthawk]

Not particularly obvious where they are, I assume.

Guy's a rogue. That's what they specialise in, so they get the extra d6's.

[lesser_minion]

Guy's a rogue. That's what they specialise in, so they get the extra d6's.

That's why the rules explicitly forbid sneak attacks if you're only able to attack a creature's limbs, I assume?

Although we should probably stop this here. Everything that's worth saying has been said.

Given the way hitpoints work, you wouldn't actually hit anything vital with your attack unless you took them out, so a sneak attack has to be directed at where it's most likely to hit the vitals in order to claim the bonus damage. That basically means 'main body' or 'head'.

[Saph]

My simulationist DM is railroading my monk with houseruled paladin code to fall because it violates his alignment to defeat an optimized fourth edition wizard. Can the TOB help me resolve this?

. . . and the world imploded.

[Greenish]

That's why the rules explicitly forbid sneak attacks if you're only able to attack a creature's limbs, I assume?The height and reach are given in the rules, but not the height the torso occupies.

Giants aren't just scaled up humans, after all. :smalltongue:

[Edit]: Besides, you can SA the limbs if the vitals are within reach, and arteries are pretty vital.

[lesser_minion]

The height and reach are given in the rules, but not the height the torso occupies.

Giants aren't just scaled up humans, after all. :smalltongue:

:smallamused:

To clarify, my point was that while they look like scaled-up humans, they are internally a bit stranger.

And, in any event, the way hitpoints work, the damage depends on where you hit them -- a blow to the torso gets a damage bonus (either an SA or a crit) because it's harder to survive in general than a blow to the leg.

The presence of arteries just justifies being able to kill someone despite not being able to ever land a solid blow on their torso or head.

On topic, the meaning of hit points can be quite good at derailing threads.

[hamishspence]

And, in any event, the way hitpoints work, the damage depends on where you hit them -- a blow to the torso gets a damage bonus (either an SA or a crit) because it's harder to survive in general than a blow to the leg.

The presence of arteries just justifies being able to kill someone despite not being able to ever land a solid blow on their torso or head.

The rules don't explicitly state that all SAs or crits are blows to the torso though. A SA or a crit can be flavored as a blow to anywhere that can be considered somewhat "vital".

[lesser_minion]

The rules don't explicitly state that all SAs or crits are blows to the torso though. A SA or a crit can be flavored as a blow to anywhere that can be considered somewhat "vital".

No, they don't, but the narrative should also justify the creature not dying from the wound if it didn't die. A sliced artery is pretty incapacitating.

[Raz_Fox]

Whether or not the rules for Sneak Attacks make any sense can derail threads, as I've seen before. Oh, if only I could point you towards the right thread...

[lesser_minion]

Whether or not the rules for Sneak Attacks make any sense can derail threads, as I've seen before. Oh, if only I could point you towards the right thread...

Yeah... I'm going to stop now.

[Greenish]

No, they don't, but the narrative should also justify the creature not dying from the wound if it didn't die. A sliced artery is pretty incapacitating.Could it be that hitpoints themselves are some sort of abstraction? :smallamused:


Also, the topic of this thread is derailing threads so waxing on and on about something offtopic will make it on topic. That's me defense and I'm sticking by it.

[lesser_minion]

Could it be that hitpoints themselves are some sort of abstraction? :smallamused:

Yes. That's the reason why you have to justify the creature's survival each time it survives, instead of declaring it to be down to some single concrete factor.

If your knowledge of biology says you can't survive your artery being sliced open, and your hitpoints say you're still alive, you didn't just get your artery sliced open.

[Greenish]

Yes. That's the reason why you have to justify the creature's survival each time it survives, instead of declaring it to be down to some single concrete factor.

If your knowledge of biology says you can't survive your artery being sliced open, and your hitpoints say you're still alive, you didn't just get your artery sliced open.AaAAaaaAAAaabstraction! *gestures hypnotically*

[Guancyto]

My simulationist DM is railroading my monk with houseruled paladin code to fall because it violates his alignment to defeat an optimized fourth edition wizard. Can the TOB help me resolve this?

Yes, as a matter of fact, the TOB provides the perfect two things you need to resolve this situation: the Unarmed Swordsage and something heavy to throw at your DM. Done. :smalltongue:

[Boci]

I can present examples of other rules that also require the DM to adjudicate whether or not they apply (or, at least, rules that worked the exact same way when that rule was printed).

Such as? I am sure you can show some that are similar, but I doubt you can show another single vague sentance that infleunces a class's abilities in such a great way, without a so much as a "the DM may".


It is printed on the page, and it is not in a section where fluff text normally appears. It was even more obviously a rule when it was written, and it wasn't removed by the update. Therefore, unless you have errata saying to delete it, it's a rule, not a piece of fluff text or some artifact of some editing as you claim.

It wouldn't be the only case. What about the copy paste error about PrC being rare from 3.0 DMG to 3.5?


Its presence is certainly enough to debunk the post that started this discussion.

No, you've got a vague sentance and your only argument for why it isn't fluff is that surely WotC wouldn't screw up and put somethibng mechanicsly meangingless right between two important rules.


Not particularly obvious where they are,

So now aberrations are immune to SA?


That's why the rules explicitly forbid sneak attacks if you're only able to attack a creature's limbs, I assume?

Rogue: I nick the giant's artery. It won't die any time soon from that wound, but it will feel it.
-10 minute argument on whether or not that works-
DM: This rules sucks, lets just ignore it.
Everyone: Agreed!

[hamishspence]

It wouldn't be the only case. What about the copy paste error about PrC being rare from 3.0 DMG to 3.5?


The 3.5 Paladin code and "Paladin Falling" rules are exactly the same as the 3.0 ones- even though, at the time of 3.0, there was already an inconsistancy between the class (only specifying Falling for committing wilful evil acts) and the description in the Atonement spell:

(Falls permanently for committing wilful evil acts, non-permanently for ones committed unknowingly or under magical compulsion)

The only difference is that in the Ex-paladin sidebar, the "can never be a paladin again" line is removed in 3.5

3.5 changes the description in the Atonement spell though- but the class is still inconsistant with the spell.

Sometimes text inconsistancies in the same book do happen.

[lesser_minion]

Such as? I am sure you can show some that are similar, but I doubt you can show another single vague sentance that infleunces a class's abilities in such a great way, without a so much as a "the DM may".

And I'm sure you have precedent for just arbitrarily ignoring parts of the text because you feel like it and then quoting your houserules like they're the only way to play the game.

The bottom line here is that we're discussing houserules. The only clear-cut thing here is that RAW does not mandate that rogues be permitted to sneak attack a creature whose vitals are out of reach.

Don't shift the burden of proof.


No, you've got a vague sentance and your only argument for why it isn't fluff is that surely WotC wouldn't screw up and put something mechanically meaningless right between two important rules.

Whether WotC screwed up or not is irrelevant. It's there, so it counts.

An interpretation that requires a piece of text to be ignored because you think WotC screwed up is blatantly not RAW.


So now aberrations are immune to SA?

If they are, it's stated. Otherwise, it's apparently quite clear where vital organs might be.


Rogue: I nick the giant's artery. It won't die any time soon from that wound, but it will feel it.
-10 minute argument on whether or not that works-
DM: This rules sucks, lets just ignore it.
Everyone: Agreed!

What you do at your table is your business.

But the fact here is that when you say this:


IIs it really that much more stupid than a halfling with a dagger getting SA against any creature larger then huge?

You're making a statement about your game. You are not making a statement about the RAW.

[Greenish]

The bottom line here is that we're discussing houserules. The only clear-cut thing here is that RAW does not mandate that rogues be permitted to sneak attack a creature whose vitals are out of reach.But there is no way in RAW to determine when that applies, so by RAW it never does.

[Boci]

Don't shift the burden of proof.

There is nothing to prove for either of us. There is a single line which you think means the DM should decide on a case by case basis without any guidlines whether or not a rogue can reach their target's vital points, and I think should be ignored.


Whether WotC screwed up or not is irrelevant. It's there, so it counts.

An interpretation that requires a piece of text to be ignored because you think WotC screwed up is blatantly not RAW.

Adding mechanics is also not RAW.


If they are, it's stated. Otherwise, it's apparently quite clear where vital organs might be.

Your opinion, not RAW. Personally I find it strange that a rogue knows where all the vital points of an aberration are, but cannot find the arteries of a giant.


What you do at your table is your business.

But the fact here is that when you say this:

You're making a statement about your game. You are not making a statement about the RAW.

RAW's affects on games is a valid point anywhere outside of TO discussions.

[Kurald Galain]

Getting back to the topic at hand, which is to say thread derailment, I have this kitten, and it is really cute. You wouldn't believe how cute my kitten is. Seriously, anyone who hates kittens is a kitten hater!!

[lesser_minion]

But there is no way in RAW to determine when that applies, so by RAW it never does.

You assume that the burden of proof is on the target, when there's an equal case for it to be on the rogue.

The RAW don't have to proscribe every single detail of what's going on in-game. Just enough that it can be played.

And it's pretty clear that the rules can't be anything like comprehensive on the topic of whether or not you can reach a creature's vitals.

[Greenish]

You assume that the burden of proof is on the target, when there's an equal case for it to be on the rogue.

The RAW don't have to proscribe every single detail of what's going on in-game. Just enough that it can be played.

And it's pretty clear that the rules can't be anything like comprehensive on the topic of whether or not you can reach a creature's vitals.I was trying to point out that you can't fall back to "it's RAW, na na naa", because RAW gives no way to determine whether or not the rogue can reach the vitals. So ruling it on any specific way is a houserule.

[Vantharion]

I think its funny how this is a thread about derailment that keeps getting derailed.
Derailment is a topic that gets derailed easily...

[lesser_minion]

There is nothing to prove for either of us. There is a single line which you think means the DM should decide on a case by case basis without any guidlines whether or not a rogue can reach their target's vital points, and I think should be ignored.

Then why is there still apparently something to debate?


Adding mechanics is also not RAW.

Making a ruling when the rules require it is.


Your opinion, not RAW. Personally I find it strange that a rogue knows where all the vital points of an aberration are, but cannot find the arteries of a giant.

Sneak attack doesn't assume any knowledge of anatomy beyond that available to any other character (otherwise you'd have a bonus on knowledge checks). It just assumes that you're better at hitting the obvious vital points.

All creatures, even aberrations, are "normal except where noted". So the torso, head, and eyes are still vital spots -- unless otherwise noted.


RAW's affects on games is a valid point anywhere outside of TO discussions.

You're making a statement about your game, not RAW -- in your game and your opinion a particular piece of text is 'meaningless fluff'.

The rules do everything they can to prevent the scenario you mentioned from occurring.


I was trying to point out that you can't fall back to "it's RAW, na na naa", because RAW gives no way to determine whether or not the rogue can reach the vitals. So ruling it on any specific way is a houserule.

I'm simply pointing out that a perceived bizarre element to the game isn't actually what RAW mandates. Rule it however you like. But don't claim a RAW mandate when the text of the books actually contradicts you.

[Amphetryon]

I think its funny how this is a thread about derailment that keeps getting derailed.
Derailment is a topic that gets derailed easily...

Yo dawg, I hurd u lyk thread derailment... :smallwink:

[Greenish]

I'm pointing out that the rules don't mandate that sneak attacks be permitted against targets that are too large for you to reach their vitals. Anything beyond that is a matter for the DM and the players.The rules don't even mention size. Can a small creature sneak attack another small creature in an adjacent square with a dagger? The rules don't say, and after all they can be almost 9' from each other at the opposite corners of their respective squares.

The rules don't tell when this clause would apply, so it becomes a matter of DM judgement, and the central question: is it fun to arbitrarily limit an already limited signature ability? You can already deny SA with several ways the player can actually anticipate.


Side question: would Penetrating Strike work if denied SA in this manner?

[Boci]

Then why is there still apparently something to debate?

The fact that we both thin our interpretatzion of RAW is better.


Making a ruling when the rules require it is.

If only the passage were that clear.


Sneak attack doesn't assume any knowledge of anatomy beyond that available to any other character (otherwise you'd have a bonus on knowledge checks). It just assumes that you're better at hitting the obvious vital points.

All creatures, even aberrations, are "normal except where noted". So the torso, head, and eyes are still vital spots -- unless otherwise noted.

There is no RAW that states arteries nicking cannot be the source of SA damage.


You're making a statement about your game, not RAW -- in your game and your opinion a particular piece of text is 'meaningless fluff'.

Not my game, any game with a rogue in it and a DM who is doing what you think the rules say they should do. Its a valid point.


The rules do everything they can to prevent the scenario you mentioned from occurring.

No, no it doesn't. There are nine words, that do not even mention that the DM "may rule that...", followed by a passage that for all we know may just be a reminder that you must be within reach of a creature to SA them, like Greenish mentioned with the kracken attacking the ship.


I'm simply pointing out that a perceived bizarre element to the game isn't actually what RAW mandates. Rule it however you like. But don't claim a RAW mandate when the text of the books actually contradicts you.

Don't claim that vague statements clearly mean the DM is suppose to make a ruling.

[Stompy]

The rules don't tell when this clause would apply, so it becomes a matter of DM judgement, and the central question: is it fun to arbitrarily limit an already limited signature ability? You can already deny SA with several ways the player can actually anticipate.

Clearly any sane DM would let you [yadda yadda yadda]...

[The Glyphstone]

Clearly, the suprerior flavor is STRAWBERRY!

Serious debate makes the thread taste funny, we need to derail it back on topic, which is to say, listing reasons why threads get derailed. If we derail this one by means of discussing one of the listed reasons, it's a meta-derail.

[Stompy]

Clearly, the suprerior flavor is STRAWBERRY!

Serious debate makes the thread taste funny, we need to derail it back on topic, which is to say, listing reasons why threads get derailed. If we derail this one by means of discussing one of the listed reasons, it's a meta-derail.

Derail Topic (maybe): Clearly what you are trying to do can be better done with magic.

In your "tastes funny" case, look at prestidigitation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm). :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

I think its funny how this is a thread about derailment that keeps getting derailed.
Derailment is a topic that gets derailed easily...

Subconscious urge to get back on the rails by discussing something when we're confronted by the fact that we're derailed.

Thus leading us further off the track? :smallconfused:

[Raz_Fox]

Hey, I have this character concept specifically detailed for 3.5, but I can't get it to convert over to 4.0. Can you tell me how to convert it over, or should I switch back to 3.5?

Hey, my DM has put us in a tricky political situation involving Large Kingdom X invading Small Caliphate Y because of Magical Superweapons Z, on the orders of King Shrub. How should we treat this, and whose side should we take?

Hey, I noticed that by exploiting X rule, I can do something that the rules did not intend. Does everyone else have any tricks like this?

Hey, I wanted to compile a list of topics that easily derail threads. Let's list them!

[hamishspence]

Schrodinger's thread- every time someone mentions that it's been derailed, it becomes automatically on track, and every time someone posts without mentioning things that derail threads- it's been derailed. :smallamused:

[Stompy]

Schrodinger's thread- every time someone mentions that it's been derailed, it becomes automatically on track, and every time someone posts without mentioning things that derail threads- it's been derailed. :smallamused:

Clearly the only way to win is to not look at the thread.

[The Glyphstone]

The First Rule of Schrodinger's Thread: Do Not Talk About Schrodinger's Thread.
The Second Rule of Schrodinger's Thread: Do Not Talk About Schrodinger's Thread.

[Kurald Galain]

The First Rule of Schrodinger's Thread: Do Not Talk About Schrodinger's Thread.

The First Rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club.

[Greenish]

The First Rule of Schrodinger's Thread: Do Not Talk About Schrodinger's Thread.
The Second Rule of Schrodinger's Thread: Do Not Talk About Schrodinger's Thread.Not that Schrödinger has anything to do with it.

[DanReiv]

Not in the list yet I think, but pretty effective derailment topic.

"Should 20 be autosuccess on skill check ?"

Usually start with a random story with someone using this rule, then inevitably, somedody comes and says he can't.

And then 3 pages of yes/no/houserules.


My simulationist DM is railroading my monk with houseruled paladin code to fall because it violates his alignment to defeat an optimized fourth edition wizard. Can the TOB help me resolve this?

Whoa, I'm in awe.

[Curmudgeon]

The only clear-cut thing here is that RAW does not mandate that rogues be permitted to sneak attack a creature whose vitals are out of reach.
And yet the term "vitals" isn't well defined. We do know "vitals" include the knees, from the Hamstring feat (Complete Warrior, page 100). So obviously anywhere in the head, neck, torso, or legs down to the knees can be struck for a sneak attack.

[hamishspence]

I thought "hamstringing" someone meant cutting their Achilles tendons- which can be cut anywhere, including the ankles?

EDIT: apparently not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamstringing

still, losing the Achilles tendons might have a pretty nasty effect as well.

[Haarkla]

So what would be the top ten topics that when mentioned will derail the thread.
Somewhere in the top there should be the more-than-humble base class MONK :smallbiggrin:, also alignment discussions. Hmm maybe also Wizard - spawning an endless thread of argument _ " My wizard can beat up everything ever concieved and also the DM and its father and WIN the game", and " No my Wizard (or fighter or MONK) can beat up your wizard".
So how would you populate the list.
from 1 to 10
This thread has been derailed. An edition war in a thread asking is 3.5e better than 4e is not derailment.


1. Help me optimise this Monk = Monks suck! You want to play a Wizard/Druid.
2. Help me optimise this Paladin = Take 18 levels of sorcerer.
3. Help me optimise this Fighter = "Fighters suck, you want to play a Wizard." "No, A Druid is actually much more powerful under real game conditions" "A Cleric can do anything a Fighter can do but better." "Fighter doesn't suck if you use this very specific build involving 7 suppliments and 3 obscure prestige classes" "Fighter should be tier 4" "Fighter should be tier 4.5"
4. Help me optimise this Mystic Theurge = Mystic Theurges suck/Mystic Theurges dont suck, they are actually much more powerful than melee.
5. I have created this race, it is meant to be good, but has this really nasty cultural/physiological characteristic, is it balanced for encounters of its CR? = Alignment discussion.
6. Alignment Discussion. These always get derailed.
7. I am converting to 4e, can you clarify this rules point? = Edition war.
8. Any thread where someone asks "what is a batman wizard?"
9. Racial Tiers = Quickly becomes just Human v. Dwarf.
10. Real world physics question. = Some imbicile mentions something about killing catgirls.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Topics don't derail threads. Posters derail threads. Just about any topic can be the source of derailment if interjected in the wrong place or in the wrong way. Some topics are themselves inherently more likely to go poorly. But for the most part people should talk about what they want, in a manner that's civil, and let us worry about derailment and incivility.