Quote from: FrankTrollman;415871Knew what he meant? How? Are you fucking psychic? Can you guaranty that you can fix in exactly the same way as everyone else? For that mater, can you explain a mechanism by which you can attack someone without getting a bonus for flanking them?

OH MY GOD. Does that mean actual people are running those games? UN-THINKABLE!

Yeah. My rants were completely off-topic. Right. :rolleyes:

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415871Knew what he meant? How? Are you fucking psychic? Can you guaranty that you can fix in exactly the same way as everyone else? For that mater, can you explain a mechanism by which you can attack someone without getting a bonus for flanking them?

The knight could probably try not to work to his full potential, effectively applying a penalty to himself, if you want to look at things that way.

QuoteSeriously? While you are under the effect of protection from evil, any [charm], [compulsion], or [possession] effects do affect you, and you can act normally. (...)

I realize that you know the regular problems of D&D less well than you might want to think. The problem - which is rather common-place - is the relative clause.

It's both arguable what exactly constitutes ongoing control and whether or not the clause applies to both enchantment and compulsion or only to compulsion effects. This problem even prompted WotC to give two different responses for 3rd edition and 3.5, respectively. If you like, you can look it up in the FAQs.

What the hell kind of inane gotcha is that supposed to be? We're talking about the 3.5 rules, not the history of D&D. Not the fact that custserv is a bunch of asshats who couldn't find their own butthole with both hands. Those are different issues. You said you didn't know how Protection From Evil's second paragraph worked in 3.5. That is dumb, because it is actually quite straightforward and uses keywords.

There is of course a separate issue, which is that if you were previously charmed, that allows people to make regular non-magical diplomacy attempts against you as if you were "Friendly". And that generates entirely non-magical and persistent effects from the diplomacy, which therefore has no keywords and is not shut off by Protection From Evil. But while that is intricate and potentially confusing, it is in no way unclear.

Quote from: 1of3The knight could probably try not to work to his full potential, effectively applying a penalty to himself, if you want to look at things that way.

Your apologetics have now officially driven you to stupidville.

The Knight does not know if he gets a flanking bonus or not. If he is flanking a Xorn, he gets no bonus. Should he have a penalty in that instance? If he is flanking an enemy with an Invisible Stalker that he can't see but the enemy is aware of, he gets a flanking bonus that in character he did not know was coming. Should he get the bonus in that instance?

Why or why not, considering that the actual knight class is written as if Flanking Bonuses were somehow option and required special action on the part of the character gaining them, neither of which is the case.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415879What the hell kind of inane gotcha is that supposed to be? We're talking about the 3.5 rules, not the history of D&D.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm talking about the fact no one I know had problems understanding the content of the knight's code while a dozen people I know have offered a dozen different interpretations for Protection from Evil that all have their point.

But anyway, now that I have managed to arrive in this scenic little village up the cost of yours, I guess I will enjoy it here a little more. Keep it on, will ya?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;415867And that's necessary to mention when he is extremely on topic?

Not to mention, isn't it time to Settembrini to have another girlish crying jag and run off, swearing he's never coming back?

Seanchai

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415879Your apologetics have now officially driven you to stupidville.

You oughta realize that you're talking to a 4rrry who played a knight for 1 session and thought it worked, Frank. Remember, he asked 12 of his friends and none of them had a problem you outlined, ergo the problem doesn't exist. That's 4rry-land and Paizo.com all over again. Don't bother, he's an ass. And, oh, he's on record for saying (after 4E came out, of course), 'I never understood 3.5'.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;415867And that’s necessary to mention when he is extremely on topic?

Forgers are never on-topic, or, almost never. This time I was right again!

Also: Told all of you back in 2007, too.

If it wasn't true, it would be ridiculous.

Quote from: Windjammer;415925You oughta realize that you're talking to a 4rrry who played a knight for 1 session and thought it worked, Frank. Remember, he asked 12 of his friends and none of them had a problem you outlined, ergo the problem doesn't exist. That's 4rry-land and Paizo.com all over again. Don't bother, he's an ass. And, oh, he's on record for saying (after 4E came out, of course), 'I never understood 3.5'.

OK, point taken. Thank you. Pointing out that the Knight does not correctly interact with rule keywords or the game's assumed setting and does not have an adequate or plausible explanation for how or why their abilities or imitations work the way they do will not convince 1of3 of anything because he refuses to understand how "looking up save bonuses on the class table" works and thinks that spending skill points is a bewildering ordeal beyond mortal comprehension.

Since this guy thinks "Giraffes and Shit" is a good argument, there really is no convincing him of anything. Since I am apparently attempting to discuss fine points of rules interactivity with a Jugalo, I will now stop. Stupid argument once, shame on you; stupid argument twice, shame on me.

-Frank