Quote from: RPGPundit...and the AoO was already expanded and vastly more complicated with all the feats and class exemptions and rules and little niggling fucking insanity-inducing nitpicks for all the autistic fuckers who think they're clever by manipulating a game to the breaking point and mistaking that for an accomplishment of worth for their character...

Holy crap.  Where were you when I was defending my position on bloated development to Dinglepuss a few months back?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHoly crap.  Where were you when I was defending my position on bloated development to Dinglepuss a few months back?

!i!

Fuck you too, you incomprehensible cuntscab. I'd repeat the same point here that I made there: You don't seem to want to actually play D&D 3.x. You categorically don't like the character creation mechanics, you don't like the combat mechanics, you don't seem to like any part of the rules set at all, and you don't want to learn to use the rules effectively despite those things. There is just no reason that you should be playing D&D.

You should go play some other game and stop whining about D&D. You would be happier, and the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with your nonsense.

As for your opinion on Attacks of Opportunity, since you are someone who has admitted that they do not know how to and do not want to learn to use the rules of D&D to increase their character's abilities and effectiveness, you are speaking from a position of self-chosen ignorance on their merits or defects. Your opinion on the subject is about as valuable as a fart in a windstorm.

Boo-hoo-hoo.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou don't seem to want to actually play D&D 3.x. You categorically don't like the character creation mechanics, you don't like the combat mechanics, you don't seem to like any part of the rules set at all, and you don't want to learn to use the rules effectively despite those things...

[...snip...]

...since you are someone who has admitted that they do not know how to and do not want to learn to use the rules of D&D to increase their character's abilities and effectiveness...

I dare you to quote where I stated any of that.  The sad thing about your reiterative and paranoid posts is that you plainly read what you want to read no matter what anyone states to the contrary.  Go back on your meds.

!i!

Here's one example, from this thread.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI believe you've put your finger on the issue that galled me so earlier this week in the build thread -- the notion that feats and class progression were designed to be played as an integral and essential part of the game.

Feats and class progressions are pretty core to D&D 3.x.

Here's some more examples from this thread.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAdmittedly, my understanding of the breakdown of a combat turn in 3.0/3.5 is imperfect.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaUnderstand that I am, by my own admission, a rank noob.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow many feats are there out there? How many PrCs? How many of them overlap or duplicate another's intended purpose? How much of it is just making up new rules for those who are too impatient or not imaginative enough to work within the core rules to create the character they want? How much of this is just making shit up to create a pet character?

By your own admission, you don't know the rules very well. You use terms like "feat bloat" and refer to PrCs "breaking the rules". You've also said that you prefer something you call "style" over something you call "substance" where the former seems to mean "my concept of the character and what he does" and the latter seems to mean "the rules of the game". In this very thread, you've said that you don't like attacks of opportunity.

It's unclear what part of D&D you do like. You don't like any of the "resource management" parts. You don't like at least several of the character creation and development rules. You don't like at least one of the combat mechanics (attacks of opportunity), though it's unclear how many of the combat mechanics you even understand in the first place.

If I didn't like the character creation mechanics, and I didn't like the combat mechanics, and I didn't like doing something that's found all throughout the mechanical structure of a game (resource management), I wouldn't say that I liked that game. Yet you do. That's inconsistent as it stands, and you've never explained how you can reconcile your distaste for huge chunks of the game with liking it.

So basically, stop being such a whiny, inconsistent cunt, you whiny, inconsistent cunt.

Yeah, you quoted exactly the bits I figured you would.  You equated my admission that I was just beginning to learn the rules (at the time I'd been playing for roughly a month) and not caring to look up obscure PrCs in explicitly optional books to refusing to play the game well or refusing to use the rules effectively.  Like I said before, you clearly see what you want to see.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou don't like any of the "resource management" parts.

Any of them?  You mean min-maxing over PrC mods?  That's one. I'm trying to think of what other parts I'm missing.

QuoteYou don't like at least several of the character creation and development rules.

[/i]Again, the PrCs, but only as far as the perceived need to look up supplemental rules in optional books.  I have little or no problem with the rest of it -- you made that part up.

QuoteYou don't like at least one of the combat mechanics (attacks of opportunity), though it's unclear how many of the combat mechanics you even understand in the first place.

Now, see?  You made that up, too.  Where did I state that I don't like AoOs?

You know, in the months that have passed, in spite of your best attempts to be an elitist jackass and chase off a new player for not enjoying what you enjoy about the game yourself, I've gone on to learn more of the rules, introduce at least two new players to the game, even buy one of the superfluous supplements (Dragon Magic of all things -- my son's nuts for dragons, so what can I say?), and actually enjoy the game as it's presented in the core books, easily adapting it to our play style.  All of this without obsessing needlessly over 15th Level multi-classing feat mods from The Master Baker's Guide to Pie-Tossing.

Oh, and for the record (and to swing this post back on topic) I don't mind AoOs that much.  Like some have said already, the more common sense ones can be applied without the need for minis and grid combat.  The rest are conveniently ignored.

!i!

You fucking hypocrite. You bitch and moan about "feat bloat" and how PrCs "break the rules" and how you hate all the "optional rules" when I mention using one or two non-core books, only to turn around and buy a non-core book filled with those very things (Dragon Magic) and use it? That's hypocrisy, and it shows how hollow all the dumb shit you say is.

As for not liking attacks of opportunity, you shouldn't admiringly quote someone who's bashing AoOs and then claim that you like AoOs. I suspect it's a similar situation to your dishonest attitude towards non-core material.

My problem with you isn't that you enjoy different things than me in D&D - plenty of people do. My problem is that you're an ingrate, a hypocrite, a whiner, incoherent and inconsistent. I do not like people who are like that, and you are.

Boo-hoo.  My problem with you is that you're a shrill, mentally unstable jackass who tries to nit-pick his way into "winning" an argument.  You read crazy moon-shit into everything you want to offend you.  Every argument you've made against anything I've posted has been based on your assumptions, to the degree where they border on the paranoid.  Your feelings got hurt when I didn't see eye-to-eye with your (rather rude) analysis of a patently ridiculous power-build, and you've been bent out of shape since.

It's been amusing jacking you around, sending you sifting through old posts on cue and such.  AoOs are still fundamentally okay, whether you believe me or not.

!i!

Pseudoephedrine, Ian, neither of you is helping your main argument by continuing this bickering.

Quote from: jrientsPseudoephedrine, Ian, neither of you is helping your main argument by continuing this bickering.

That's true. I'm done arguing with this childish cunt.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's true. I'm done arguing with this childish cunt.

:hissyfit:

You were done before you even started, seeing how you manufactured an argument out of your own insecurities.

Don't forget to take your meds.

!i!

That's why I love this place. It makes me seem level-headed in contrast.

The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn. It's a fundimental design breaking point. The line between too fiddly or not in-depth enough.

Quote from: Thanatos02The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn.

Or, in this case, those who like them to the point where they obsess over the mechanistic minutia, and those who like them to a degree but reject needless over-development. But yes, is it too fiddly or not in-fiddly enough?

!i!

Quote from: Thanatos02The arguement is kind of heated, in a bizarre kind of way, but I think it demonstrates the seperation between two different types of players. Some people use them and like them. Others don't like them and can't be arsed to be bothered to learn. It's a fundimental design breaking point. The line between too fiddly or not in-depth enough.

I think it's mainly the table in core D&D that gives people the impression that they're fiddly and complex. We associate having to look things up on tables with things that are too complex to be memorised easily.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou fucking hypocrite. You bitch and moan about "feat bloat" and how PrCs "break the rules" and how you hate all the "optional rules" when I mention using one or two non-core books, only to turn around and buy a non-core book filled with those very things (Dragon Magic) and use it? That's hypocrisy, and it shows how hollow all the dumb shit you say is.

As for not liking attacks of opportunity, you shouldn't admiringly quote someone who's bashing AoOs and then claim that you like AoOs. I suspect it's a similar situation to your dishonest attitude towards non-core material.

My problem with you isn't that you enjoy different things than me in D&D - plenty of people do. My problem is that you're an ingrate, a hypocrite, a whiner, incoherent and inconsistent. I do not like people who are like that, and you are.

You are batshit insane. Go and have a sit down.