Toxic DMs

[dextercorvia]

So admittedly this is no Lanky Bugger story. Hopefully nothing else is.

That said, why would someone choose to DM, despite a poor understanding of the rules, an unwillingness to change, and a negative and suspicious attitude about every character action. Is it just a power trip?

In my case, recently I joined a PbP game on another site. Within my first week, he booted someone from the game for an OOC conversation that I only saw the beginning of. (By the time I came back to it, the entire conversation had been deleted.) I let that slide as I had only just joined the game, and wasn't sure of entirely what had transpired. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Later the DM taunted a couple of us OOC for making "the wrong choice" in game. When it became clear to me that the DM had misread my post as aggressive rather than just cautious -- I pointed out to him what I had said (and meant) by loading my crossbow. He refused to accept that he had read my post wrong, and accused me of changing it, despite the lack of time stamp, and threatened to remove me from the game if I didn't drop it. My ire was raised, his posts are at times nearly incomprehensible due to grammar and spelling, but I resolved that I would just be explicitly clear in the future.

Enter the Hydra. His first ruling is that it can get 6 attacks as part of an AoO. I point out that isn't the usual case, and he claims "it's in the book". (Edit: It seems that this is a common point of division. I had never heard that ruling before.) On my turn I tell him that I cast Aid, and then move toward the character that is in combat to touch him (I spell out the exact order both IC and OOC to be clear. He tells me I get an AoO for casting in combat. I respond with the rules quote from the SRD, which he ignores. The OOC conversation goes something like this:

1: DM -- You get an AoO.
2: Me -- Why I did nothing to provoke one? Explanation. Rules support.
3: DM -- You cast in combat!, return to 1.

Finally, in a huff, he says fine, no AoO. He tells me to quit being so rulesy, that he doesn't now[sic] all the rules, but if I want to argue about it I should leave the game.

This was the first statement he made that I agreed with. I should have left earlier, but out of 5 games that I was in, only this one was updating really regularly. Fortunately I'm in two others now that seem to be doing well. So I can get my fix without taking abuse from some power tripping DM.

I'm very rulesy (although I don't mind houserules). If he had just said: In my game, I houserule so that you can get more than one AoO, or I don't play with the move between casting and touching rule, I'd be fine. But why claim to use a rules system you don't actually use or understand?

[SowZ]

So admittedly this is no Lanky Bugger story. Hopefully nothing else is.

That said, why would someone choose to DM, despite a poor understanding of the rules, an unwillingness to change, and a negative and suspicious attitude about every character action. Is it just a power trip?

Someone choosing to DM despite not understanding the rules well is perfectly understandable if they want to learn them better. Often, a group is all fairly new or else the most experienced player wants to play or isn't a great storyteller or else a newer person just wants to run a cool story. But DMing with less rules knowledge and no desire to get better, yeah, that is odd.

[dextercorvia]

Someone choosing to DM despite not understanding the rules well is perfectly understandable if they want to learn them better. Often, a group is all fairly new or else the most experienced player wants to play or isn't a great storyteller or else a newer person just wants to run a cool story. But DMing with less rules knowledge and no desire to get better, yeah, that is odd.

Yeah this guy indicated he had no willingness to learn the rules he didn't understand. After this happened, I lurked in another one of his games, where he had recently had an argument with a Cleric of Pelor that she couldn't actually completely negate his undead encounter with a turn check. He actually argued that turn checks and damage didn't work that way, and that she could only destroy one of the three. She calmly presented her case, and he shot her down with the same, my way or the highway remark.

[valadil]

That said, why would someone choose to DM, despite a poor understanding of the rules, an unwillingness to change, and a negative and suspicious attitude about every character action.

People are pretty good at pretending their faults don't exist. If you've got a smidgen of self esteem, it's easier to think "I'd be pretty good at that thing I've never tried before," than "I'm probably bad at that so I won't bother."

[Premier]

That said, why would someone choose to DM, despite a poor understanding of the rules, an unwillingness to change, and a negative and suspicious attitude about every character action.

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Jarawara]

I got no problem if the DM doesn't know the rules. Rules are just a framework to play a good game, and this is a storytelling game - rules are hardly necessary.

I got no problem if the DM wants to change the rules, though it would be nice if he told me ahead of time. Still, even if I didn't find out how turning worked until I tried it, I could live with it. Quite frankly, it sounds like that DM is using turning the way I use turning in my game, i.e. one undead at a time, not 'an encounter ending turn check'.

I don't even have a problem with the DM enforcing a "My way or the highway" rule. It's his game, if I am unwilling to play his way, I should leave. He might be left alone, but that's his right. I'd rather have it that way than to try to force him to play my way against his will. Better to have the DM in his element, enjoying his own game; the game will be better that way.

But what bothers me of this whole story is the constant fighting going on... Him deleting posts and exhibiting OOC conflict, blaming others for the fights, seemingly being unable to play with others well (or at all). The DM can do all of the first three (paragraphs) and be fine, but he damn well better be accomodating, understanding, and patient at explaining his rules and reasonings. If he just gets in your way and says "shut up or leave my game", well, the choice is clear. I leave.

If he had said up front "These are my rules, or *the* rules as *I* understand them, and we don't have time to be doing rules debates", and then calmly but firmly explained that again whenever someone brought up a rules debate, then I'd have no trouble with his 'my way or the highway' aspect. But instead, by the OP he looks like he was just looking for a fight, or maybe just one of those guys who can't seem to avoid one. He was spending too much time arguing rules instead of actually providing a game for the non-arguers. It takes two to argue, and he seems perfectly up for it on his end.

[kyoryu]

Meh, it's a common issue with DMs. They get too attached to their cool encounter or whatever, and hate it when it gets shot down.

I think it's actually based on wanting to make a fun game, with tough encounters and lots of drama. They just don't realize how toxic it ends up being.

[Zombimode]

Enter the Hydra. His first ruling is that it can get 6 attacks as part of an AoO. I point out that isn't the usual case, and he claims "it's in the book".

Well, I'm not trying to justify this DM's behaviour or anything, but this is actually true.
Hydras have the Combat Reflexes feat. Now, normally that just means the creature can make additional AoOs equal to the Dex bonus (if any) which would be +1 for a 6-headed Hydra. BUT the "Feat" section of the Hydras entry in the SRD reads: "A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.". So yes, that a 6-headed Hydra can make 6 AoOs is actually "in the book".

[obryn]

So yes, that a 6-headed Hydra can make 6 AoOs is actually "in the book".

...but not all against the same triggering action, IIRC.

-O

[dextercorvia]

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Nice. Thanks for the link. Now I have to see if I can pass my Will save vs. spending 1d4 hours looking up psychological disorders on Wikipedia.

Well, I'm not trying to justify this DM's behaviour or anything, but this is actually true.
Hydras have the Combat Reflexes feat. Now, normally that just means the creature can make additional AoOs equal to the Dex bonus (if any) which would be +1 for a 6-headed Hydra. BUT the "Feat" section of the Hydras entry in the SRD reads: "A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.". So yes, that a 6-headed Hydra can make 6 AoOs is actually "in the book".

...but not all against the same triggering action, IIRC.

-O

This is my understanding as well. Combat Reflexes actually states that you can't make more than one per trigger. So this has to mean that it can make them vs. multiple triggers. It might even mean that it can make 1 for each head despite the dismal dexterity, but I can't see it meaning all six heads per trigger, up to twice/round. Still if he had pointed it out, and said that that was how he read it, I might have been alright.

And, he wasn't just being rules light. He jumped on another guy because he didn't understand how he got a Knowledge check so high, and argued rules with him. He had a very definite and wrong notion of how common rules are applied.

[Slipperychicken]

Reminds me of my own DM. He decided that Combat Reflexes doesn't increase the number of AoOs you can make in a round; it gives you 1+Dex mod attacks for the single AoO. He decided this mid-session, in the second-to-last session of the game.

I already made a list of my DM's stupid houserules (no-one else did. not even him), so I'll just post it here.

Vitals
Con damage doesn't cause HP loss (So ruled on-the-spot because a PC would have died otherwise. Very easily abusable)

Skills
Max ranks= 2*level (two times level), all skills are class skills for everyone. Yes, even Handle Humanoid, Iaijutsu Focus, and Lucid Dreaming. This makes most skill DCs trivial, and makes skill-based things overpowering.

Natural 1 is usually auto-fail, 20 is usually auto-success. Depends on how the DM's feeling. (We've stopped telling him when we roll natural 1s, so it doesn't have as much impact when he decides whether we fail or succeed)

Crits
All critical hits are automatic hits.

Crit-range increases stack (abused only by NPCs, because the players aren't shameless munchkins).

Crits auto-confirm (again, abused by NPCs) Because failing to confirm is "disappointing".

Combat Reflexes
The feat does not grant more AoOs/round. It gives you [1+Dex-mod] attacks for the same provocation.

Armor
Silk Weavings stack with Chain Shirt.

"Defender Wins": When an attack roll and AC are equal, the "defender wins", so you miss. Same thing for just about every opposed roll, Spell Resistance, etc.

I think that one day, I'll make a build which abuses all of my DM's houserules at once (probably a critfishing tripper with max ranks in Iaijutsu Focus and a way to Flatfoot people), just to show him how stupid they are.



Hydra stuff: The text says it can use all of its heads for an AoO, not all of its Bite Attacks.

[Douglas]

...but not all against the same triggering action, IIRC.

-O

If that were the case, there would be no need for the special statement in the monster description.

This is my understanding as well. Combat Reflexes actually states that you can't make more than one per trigger.

That is the general case here. The hydra monster description has a more specific rule, and can therefore override the general feat description.

So this has to mean that it can make them vs. multiple triggers. It might even mean that it can make 1 for each head despite the dismal dexterity, but I can't see it meaning all six heads per trigger, up to twice/round. Still if he had pointed it out, and said that that was how he read it, I might have been alright.

I see two possible readings of the hydra monster description with regard to combat reflexes:
1) It is limited by number of heads instead of dex bonus.
2) It can use every head on a single AoO.

If it is the first case, the writers chose a very strange way to word it. The second seems a much more natural interpretation of the wording to me. The only reason I see to interpret it the other way is how powerful the second interpretation is, which is rather shaky grounds to base a rules interpretation on when it hasn't ventured into outright broken territory. Also, the second interpretation matches much better with the perfectly clear ability to attack with every head as a regular non-full attack.

The way he handled it, especially combined with everything else you've mentioned, is pretty bad, but I believe that particular ruling was in fact correct.

[Tyndmyr]

Enter the Hydra. His first ruling is that it can get 6 attacks as part of an AoO. I point out that isn't the usual case, and he claims "it's in the book". On my turn I tell him that I cast Aid, and then move toward the character that is in combat to touch him (I spell out the exact order both IC and OOC to be clear. He tells me I get an AoO for casting in combat. I respond with the rules quote from the SRD, which he ignores.

Well, he's right. A Hydra DOES get six attacks as part of an AoO, and it is, indeed, in the book.

And as a hydra has reach, it is highly likely that you'll incur an AoO once it's gotten in your face. Moving away provokes, casting there provokes(unless you cast defensively).

I don't know the DM, and can't speak for everything in here, but I suspect that the accusations of not knowing the rules earlier in the thread might be a bit overblown.

[Jay R]

I find a bad DM much easier to deal with than a bad player. I leave, because if I can't completely trust the DM, the game cannot work.

With a bad player, leaving could mean that I'm losing an otherwise good game, but there is not such thing as a good game with a bad DM.

[dextercorvia]

Well, he's right. A Hydra DOES get six attacks as part of an AoO, and it is, indeed, in the book.

And as a hydra has reach, it is highly likely that you'll incur an AoO once it's gotten in your face. Moving away provokes, casting there provokes(unless you cast defensively).

I don't know the DM, and can't speak for everything in here, but I suspect that the accusations of not knowing the rules earlier in the thread might be a bit overblown.

I can see now how he would have read it that way, my problem isn't that that is his ruling (I still read it the other way, but I understand the text could be read how he said).

The AoO thing was ironclad though. And that happened first. I cast the spell 20' from the Hydra, then moved toward without passing through any threatened squares (I had to enter one, which might be why he thought I provoked -- that is a common mistake) From there I touched an ally.

It probably clouded my reasoning about any other ruling that he made. The fact that his posts (especially when irritated where incredibly difficult to read didn't help either.

[Saph]

A lot of it just comes down to the fact that DMs are in perpetually short supply, and really good DMs are in incredibly short supply. So there are a lot of mediocre-to-bad DMs who can attract and maintain players just because there aren't enough good DMs to take up the slack.

Regarding hydras:

I see two possible readings of the hydra monster description with regard to combat reflexes:
1) It is limited by number of heads instead of dex bonus.
2) It can use every head on a single AoO.

. . . as douglas says, it's ambiguously worded and can be interpreted either way. I tend to interpret it as "it gets one AoO per round per head" but I've had DMs who interpret it the other way, which can be quite brutal, especially against parties that are careless about provoking. Getting attacked 18 times in one round isn't pleasant.

Either way, it sounds like you made the right decision about leaving.

[huttj509]

What gets me about hydras is the breath weapon for pyro and cryo-hydras. "all heads breathe once every 1d4 rounds" and "each jet does 3d6 points of damage per head" seems like a 5 headed pyro (CR 6), every 1d4 rounds, does 5 breath attacks which each do 15d6 damage.

As to combat reflexes, it just seems to me that the 5 bite attacks are 5 attacks for the normal Combat Reflexes (up to your # of attacks). I do agree it's possible to read it as attacking all at once.

[Katana_Geldar]

I find a bad DM much easier to deal with than a bad player. I leave, because if I can't completely trust the DM, the game cannot work.

With a bad player, leaving could mean that I'm losing an otherwise good game, but there is not such thing as a good game with a bad DM.

I agree with this, a DM doesn't necessarily know ALL the rules, the talent lies in their interpretation and applying them to the situation at hand.

I DM 4e a lot, and I have had rules disputes at the table. When that happens I give the player the benefit of the doubt unless it sounds too fishy ( overly advantages one side without a penalty for doing so). Then I hand the player the compendium and tell him to look it up.

For online games, we occasionally have rules disputes and I admit that throughout the life of my game (almost two years) I have made mistakes. But I don't back track and apologise to players, saying this is the way this us bring played from now on.
Only once have I overruled RAW, when I saw how failed saving throws we're changed to give an unfair advantage to the person making it. I said that we'll be going from vanilla 4e on this, and this counts for NPCs too.

Basically there's three rules for making rules decisions as a DM: be fair, be consistent and listen. And I had to learn on the job, as it us. I learned to DM by DMing.

[dextercorvia]

Either way, it sounds like you made the right decision about leaving.

Yeah. Reading and typing this it seems like my concerns weren't as much about rules as I thought. And I didn't realize that the other way to read a Hydra was out there. I've never done much DMing or polymorph in 3.5, so I am woefully ignorant of Monster abilities normally, except what I have experienced as a player.

I guess when it boils down to it, I didn't appreciate his style, and it made the game unfun for me. Others might, even more might be willing to put up with it. But, I've gone long enough between games to know it's okay to wait for a good DM.

[Fiery Diamond]

...but not all against the same triggering action, IIRC.

-O

Actually, the wording is really vague and confusing. The first time I ran a Hydra, I thought it gave them all from the same triggering action, too. In retrospect, and after thinking about it a lot, I realize that balance-wise it makes so much more sense to mean it gets a distinct AoO (each with different triggering action) for each head, but the wording is... not the best. Let's hop on over to the SRD to demonstrate.

1) The Hydra gets Combat Reflexes as a bonus feat. How does Combat Reflexes work again?

From srd

Combat Reflexes [General]
Benefit

You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus.

With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.

2)The normal description says you get additional AoOs equal to your Dexterity bonus. What's the Hydra's Dex again?

From srd
12

3)Oh, okay, so the Hydra gets an additional AoO, right? That's what the feat does, after all!

Wait a minute, there's something else in the Hydra's description about that feat...

From srd

Feats

A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity.

4)Huh? That's not related to what Combat Reflexes normally does at all! So is this an additional clause added to Combat Reflexes for the sake of the Hydra or something? The two don't mesh well. What does it mean, exactly?

CONUNDRUM: Which of the following two things does this set of rules mean?

A) The Hydra gets an additional AoO from Combat Reflexes since it has 12 Dex. Additionally, each head gets to go on its AoOs, per the little description, much like it gets to use all of its heads to attack with a single attack action.

B) The extra info in the Hydra section is meant to replace what Combat Reflexes normally does; specific trumps general. Instead of getting +1 AoO from having 12 Dex, the Hydra gets a total number of AoOs equal to its number of heads.

ANSWER: I'm fairly sure at this point that [B] is what was intended. But when I first used a Hydra, I was rather confused by the confusing way they put things together and thought that [A] was what it meant. And that's most likely what the DM in this scenario thought as well, though he apparently thought it was obvious that this was what was meant rather than finding it confusing.

Not that that excuses the bad general behavior of this DM, but I just felt that the point on the Hydra needed to be made.


And to think that this would have all been avoided if instead of giving the feat and the qualifier to the Hydra they just added "The Hydra can make a number of AoOs equal to its number of heads, and it can make AoOs while flat-footed," which is what it amounts to. It would have been much simpler and much less convoluted.


Edit: I really need to not leave pages open when I go in to work and then compose replies when I get home before refreshing the page. I got ninjad by almost five hours. *facepalm*

[Anxe]

I think we all know now that the most toxic DM of them all is a Hydra with attacks of opportunity.

[zanetheinsane]

Not to get totally off-topic with the Hydra issue since it's been debated to death, but my ruling has always been that it gets the two attacks of opportunity and each AoO is the standard attack of the Hydra (thus a 5-headed Hydra would get 5 bites).

I feel this was always the rules as intended since a Hydra is a very special creature whose regular standard attack is "X bites". In general a monster uses its "Attack" entry as it's standard attack and thus attack of opportunity.

I find the wording completely clumsy and ambiguous, but the fact that the Hydra also gets all of its attacks on a charge (without pounce) would imply that it almost certainly always attacks with all of it's heads on a standard attack.

I also allow the elemental Hydras to all breath at the same time but treat each breath a separate attack, thus you get more Reflex saves to halve damage and any elemental resistance you have becomes much stronger as it's a bunch of smaller attacks being reduced every time.

This does make the Hydra a very formidable opponent but not unbeatable (they are very slow and stupid). I never ever introduce a Hydra to players without first telling them how I rule on this issue and it can drastically affect their strategy and combat.

[Winter_Wolf]

In reply to the title subject:

Toxic DMs come at a person from the strangest angles sometimes, hey? I knew a guy way back, seemed like a nice enough person in most cases (despite my instant and lasting dislike of him from literally the first minute I met him), who managed to be insulting, condescending, and adamant in his version of things no matter what. Of course the icing was that he really wasn't trying to be an ass; he really thought he was doing good things.

He was possibly one of the worst DMs I've ever personally seen in action.* Bossy, made it up as he went, and generally brought his personality with him and was sure he was Correct at all times. All the players griped about his style (when we wasn't around), but when it was put to them to leave the game or someone else take over, they all demurred at being in charge, and as much said, "better a crappy game than no game."

Being that I play games to have fun, and I'd rather not play than not have fun gaming, I've often wondered at the players who stick around when their DM tells them to "suck it up or pack it up."

*I was not a player in his game, but I was good friends with one of the players, and was given a green light to sit in on a game session. Given that it was in the main dining hall of the uni campus I couldn't have been banned from being there in any case, but DM seemed happy enough to have an audience to showcase his brilliant mastery.

[Tyndmyr]

I can see now how he would have read it that way, my problem isn't that that is his ruling (I still read it the other way, but I understand the text could be read how he said).

The AoO thing was ironclad though. And that happened first. I cast the spell 20' from the Hydra, then moved toward without passing through any threatened squares (I had to enter one, which might be why he thought I provoked -- that is a common mistake) From there I touched an ally.

It probably clouded my reasoning about any other ruling that he made. The fact that his posts (especially when irritated where incredibly difficult to read didn't help either.

He probably either erred on the AoO provoking from movement, or didn't realize that you could/were holding a touch spell.

Either of these would be an error, to be sure, but not a ridiculous error. I'd not consider a DM toxic over such a thing. We all make errors now and again.

Not to get totally off-topic with the Hydra issue since it's been debated to death, but my ruling has always been that it gets the two attacks of opportunity and each AoO is the standard attack of the Hydra (thus a 5-headed Hydra would get 5 bites).

I feel this was always the rules as intended since a Hydra is a very special creature whose regular standard attack is "X bites". In general a monster uses its "Attack" entry as it's standard attack and thus attack of opportunity.

I find the wording completely clumsy and ambiguous, but the fact that the Hydra also gets all of its attacks on a charge (without pounce) would imply that it almost certainly always attacks with all of it's heads on a standard attack.

I also allow the elemental Hydras to all breath at the same time but treat each breath a separate attack, thus you get more Reflex saves to halve damage and any elemental resistance you have becomes much stronger as it's a bunch of smaller attacks being reduced every time.

This is precisely the same way I've run hydras, and for the same reasons. Multiple heads are a twitchy thing in D&D, but the standard attack and breath weapon indicate that they really do mean exactly what they wrote, and that all heads attack together.

That said, a hydra really isn't a big deal if you just stay the hell away. They're kind of slow.

[dextercorvia]

He probably either erred on the AoO provoking from movement, or didn't realize that you could/were holding a touch spell.

Either of these would be an error, to be sure, but not a ridiculous error. I'd not consider a DM toxic over such a thing. We all make errors now and again.

And, I believed it was a simple error. That is why I tried explaining my actions (I even quoted the square I cast in, and moved to, etc). It isn't the fact that he misunderstood the rules/ or my actions that got me, it was that he put his fingers in his ears and repeated, 'you cast in combat,' no matter what I said.

The toxic part wasn't until really until he told me to quit with the rules, or leave the game. If I wanted to play freeform, I would have picked a game marked freeform.

That said, a hydra really isn't a big deal if you just stay the hell away. They're kind of slow.

Staying away was my plan, but the front line jumped in the swamp with it. It was about 30-40' away when we first spotted it. No one in the party had Improved Sunder, so it didn't make much since to get up in its face.

[Roguenewb]

A bad DM says no a lot. "No, you can't use that race" "No you can't have an extra crappy feat for flavor" "No you can't use that PrC" "No swinging from chandeliers doesn't help you" and so on.

But you wanna know a secret? Toxic DMs say "yes". They let each player run roughshod over the design of the game and campaign. Each player has no flavor connection, no links to players, no cooperation, a ton of incredibly broken and/or wrong tone stuff. People do thjings in coombat and encounters that have nothing to do with the rules. They are the DM equivalent of super special snowflakes, and they kill games.

[kyoryu]

The toxic part wasn't until really until he told me to quit with the rules, or leave the game. If I wanted to play freeform, I would have picked a game marked freeform.

I dunno. Sounds like you argued about a questionable call, to the point where you couldn't let it go and had to gripe on another forum about it.

While it's impossible to say without seeing the game thread, is it possible that you were rules-lawyering to the extent that it was becoming a disruption?

[Slipperychicken]

The toxic part wasn't until really until he told me to quit with the rules, or leave the game. If I wanted to play freeform, I would have picked a game marked freeform.

I think he was doing you a favor there. He's an awful DM, and telling you to quit is some of the best advice for players with bad DMs. So follow his advice and you'll both be better off for it, especially if there's a good DM in your area.

[dextercorvia]

I dunno. Sounds like you argued about a questionable call, to the point where you couldn't let it go and had to gripe on another forum about it.

While it's impossible to say without seeing the game thread, is it possible that you were rules-lawyering to the extent that it was becoming a disruption?

The part I was rules lawyering wasn't questionable (I questioned the Hydra thing, but that wasn't what we had our big disagreement about). Imagine you are in a brightly lit room, and your DM tells you there are caltrops on some of the squares. You tell him, "I walk around the caltrops," and he informs you that you take damage and should reduce your speed. You say, "I did specify I went around them." He informs you that you "moved through the area, caltrops got you."

Wouldn't any reasonable person question that? If nothing else to make sure he read your post right?

You can find the conversation here if you are so inclined. It starts at post 377, although some of the rest is good for a laugh.

[Slipperychicken]

You can find the conversation here if you are so inclined. It starts at post 377, although some of the rest is good for a laugh.

It looks like he's talking about walking through the Hydra's threatened squares provoking an AoO (it has 10ft reach. I assume your guy only had 5ft reach, so you'd have to walk through it and eat an AoO to get to the Hydra regardless). First time he mentioned it was about the spellcasting, second time (after you quoted the rules text) was about the movement through threatened squares, hence him saying "either way, you will get an attack of opportunity..".

It just looks like he communicated his thoughts very poorly, but he has a point about moving through threatened squares (unless you have a decent Tumble modifier).