Do you threaten at both 5' and 10' when using a reach weapon with a Brawler / Monk?

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, the "joke", may be that he is "joking".

Either way, that's not right.

[Komoda]

I thought it was rather funny how much we all took the bait.

[blackbloodtroll]

The bait of him joking, or the bait of him joking, about joking?

[DM_Blake]

Straph wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was.

So, uh, an April Fools' Day joke. That wasn't a joke, wasn't funny, wasn't even on April Folls' Day.

Yeah.

Right.

It didn't work.

Mainly because you choose to appear as a very common thing: a misguided and obstinate rules lawyer. There are thousands of instances of that right here on these message boards. Pretending to be one is not a joke. It's like pretending to have blue eyes - so what, lots of people have blue eyes. Not funny, not a joke.

Except, pretending to have blue eyes is not irritating and even more importantly, is has no potential to mislead or misinform countless other people who might come to this message board with an honest question about a rule.

Next April, instead of camouflaging yourself as a closed-minded fool, try actually doing something original and funny.

And try doing it, you know, actually on April Fools' Day.

(side note: no name-calling here; I recognize that the poster is pretending to be these things, not actually being them)

[CountofUndolpho]

Maybe if you chaps didn't have so much invested in arguing for 10' & 5' AoOs, you wouldn't react so vehemently and things wouldn't get so heated.
Perhaps if you had all chilled out found where he was misunderstanding the rules and then pointed it out politely most of this thread wouldn't have been needed.

Leaping down someone's throat, sneering at them and shouting them down isn't usually the best way to get your points across, even when you are right.

Straph listened, discussed and admitted he was wrong when the proof was given, then when badgered used sarcasm and when bullied further said you win and left.....

[blackbloodtroll]

It didn't start out that way.

After snobbish remarks, and ignoring evidence, well, it got heated.

Also, this is text.

Everything you read, is read with a bias.

If you expect responses to be harsh, you will read them that way, regardless of intent, and you will not even be aware of your bias.

No one goes to any messageboard, and reads any comment, without some manner of bias, on tone.

[DM_Blake]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

Maybe if you chaps didn't have so much invested in arguing for 10' & 5' AoOs, you wouldn't react so vehemently and things wouldn't get so heated.

Perhaps if you had all chilled out found where he was misunderstanding the rules and then pointed it out politely most of this thread wouldn't have been needed.

Leaping down someone's throat, sneering at them and shouting them down isn't usually the best way to get your points across, even when you are right.

Straph listened, discussed and admitted he was wrong when the proof was given, then when badgered used sarcasm and when bullied further said you win and left.....

I totally disagree.

The entire first page is friendly, despite Straph repeatedly ignoring answers and repeating his incorrect assumptions. Fair enough, sometimes people just struggle with getting a concept, and this one is not immediately evident, so people kept trying to show him his errors.

He didn't listen, didn't argue, and I don't recall him admitting he was wrong except one post where he said he might be coming around (which actually seemed more like sarcasm than actual capitulation, then argued some more.

It didn't get snarky until the middle of the 2nd page, and even most of that was flagrant redictio ad absurdem to illustrate the point.

[BigNorseWolf]

Straph wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.

I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.

Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.

Best forum ever~

Not funny not clever not original and not even the right day.

[Chess Pwn]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

It didn't start out that way.

After snobbish remarks, and ignoring evidence, well, it got heated.

Also, this is text.

Everything you read, is read with a bias.

If you expect responses to be harsh, you will read them that way, regardless of intent, and you will not even be aware of your bias.

No one goes to any messageboard, and reads any comment, without some manner of bias, on tone.

This is totally true, and something I am trying to figure out how to deal with. Lets say you said "I like balloons that look red"

My post "So you're saying you like red balloons?"

This can be taken nicely like I'm just making sure I understood what he meant, or it can be taken rudely like "I can't believe you do that".

And we did explain nicely at first what the issue was, and then he responded saying in effect, I don't care about the rules you posted, I say this. Which will get people saying, look at the rules we provided, respond to those so we can get to common ground, and then he responded the same still. Like if you assume all the posts are not angry then most of them seem not angry.

[blackbloodtroll]

Unfortunately, negative bias is default.

We may not all believe so, but it is.

Realizing this, and addressing it, is the first step to realizing that there are less jerks than we assume, and that others will likely see you as a jerk, even if that was not your intent.

Just to be clear, there are still a lot of jerks in the world, and, knowing or not, we are sometimes one of them.

[BigNorseWolf]

If you're going to do something like this you have to take it to the point of parody. The problem with "it doesn't say you can so you can't" and "it doesn't say i can't so I can" is it runs into the Poe's law of gaming: some people are so far out there that they are impossible to distinguish from a parody. You didn't even get to the zannier ends of people i've actually seen. Its like repeating something you heard on fox news and then saying "HA HA "

[blackbloodtroll]

You see this snowball in my hand? Climate change disproved.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Actually, having thought it over, I'll say this much: It may not be RAW, but letting someone threaten at both ranges is kind of unrealistic. I think I would house rule against it, though I know the Rules Questions subforum is more concerned with getting ready for lawyer school than the actual roleplaying. ;)

I speak from experience here. You cannot attack with a spear and a kick at the same time. It simply does not work. You fall over. You open yourself up to attacks. It's a terrible technique.

No, I've never fought with a spear and kick before, but I have tried to walk and chew gum at the same time. It didn't work out. QED.

[Kobold Catgirl]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You see this snowball in my hand? Climate change disproved.

"Global warming"? HEY GENIUS. GLOBE WARMS UP ALL THE TIME, IT'S CALLED "SUMMER".

[Bill Dunn]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You see this snowball in my hand? Climate change disproved.

"Global warming"? HEY GENIUS. GLOBE WARMS UP ALL THE TIME, IT'S CALLED "SUMMER".

Maybe you have been playing too much football without a helmet.

If you're going to make Ford references today, I'll meet that challenge.

[thaX]

What is IUS?

[TriOmegaZero]

Improved Unarmed Strike.

[Jiggy]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I know the Rules Questions subforum is more concerned with getting ready for lawyer school than the actual roleplaying. ;)

That was mean, and I had thought you were better than that.

Quote:

I speak from experience here. You cannot attack with a spear and a kick at the same time. It simply does not work. You fall over. You open yourself up to attacks. It's a terrible technique.

Threatening at both ranges isn't about attacking with both at the same time, it's about being ready to attack with whichever one is easiest to hit the target with at any given moment.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Straph wrote:

It is super broken with 6~7 attacks per round at 1st level.

OOH! I want tom make 7 attacks/round at 1st level! How do you do that?

A Tengu White-Haired Witch with Claws and the IUS Feat? That's what: Bite, 2 Claws, Hair, and 2 Unarmed Strikes? That's 6, but the Unarmed Strikes would get like a -6, and the natural attacks would get -5. That sounds broken, but not in the way I want in my character. Better to just stick with 2 Claws, the Bite, and the Hair.

But probably at level 1, this character would be more effective with something like a Morning Star and a shield, starting with a level in like Ranger, then take 2 levels in Monk, Master of Many Styles, getting Snake Fang and Combat Reflexes at level 3, giving plausibly a capacity for 4 Unarmed Attacks of Opportunity, 1 Immediate Action Attack, and a weapon attack, say with long sword or morning star. So that's 6 by level 3, sort of. There is no guarantee that you will be attacked and missed 4 times/round, but it's quite a stout character.

I'm thinking

Tengu with claws, maybe

1Ranger1: Freebooter, Weapon Focus Claws
2R1Monk1: Master of Many Styles, Snake Style, monk stuff
3R1M2: Combat Reflexes, Snake Fang
4R1M2Fighter1: Feral Combat Training Claws

So this character would have the option of 2 claws instead of weapon and shield, maybe carrying a longbow and either clawing or shooting as circumstances require, but since the Attacks of Opportunity require being attacked and missed, the character really benefits from that shield.

It might make more sense to not even have Claws, develop the Bite Attack with FCT and AoOs, and use the Tengu Bastard Sword in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes as the Full Attack Action.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Straph wrote:

The great cleave comment "It doesn't say you can't do it" was the dead give away that people will read the rules as they want to see them, rather than the mechanics they were built for.

I am a little impatient with people attacking my ideas on character building saying that I am thinking of things that the game designers didn't intend as if that's a bad thing.

Using your imagination and the rules to find cool effects IS THE VERY HEART AND SOUL of tabletop heroic fantasy roleplaying games! Nearly every single PFS player I know uses the rules aggressively to create as powerful characters as possible. And coming up with an unexpected, yet legal, application of the rules is the very definition of elevating the game to a higher level.

If such an idea it somehow threatens the balance of the game, creates problems, and makes the game unplayable, then it is not a problem the player created, but rather a problem the player discovered. Is that what you think I have done: discovered a problem and shared it with the community, giving everybody a chance to examine it, giving the designers a chance to fix it? Well, you're welcome. No charge.

In general, the intent of the rules can only be conjectured about. Funny thing. I have bought more than $100 worth of of Paizo Pathfinder products, and I don't think I have ever bought a single rule that was intended. It seems that every rule I have purchased was written. I just don't think Paizo Publishing has the right to dictate their intentions upon the gaming community. If the rules say something that the publisher did not intend and do not like, then what that means is that they made a bad product. They can certainly fix their defective products with official rules posts, FAQs and errata notifications. But until they do, the rules mean what they say, not what Paizo intended to say. So, Staph, calling for Paizo to reconsider the consequences of rules you think are problematic is legit. You are a customer, and you have the right to complain. And honestly, even if everyone in the world disagrees with you (I THINK I disagree with you.), if you are right, you are right, and I think it is your moral duty to argue your case exhaustively.

So what does Great Cleave say?

Great Cleave wrote:

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach.

So, the requirements of your foes being legitimate targets of your Great Cleave is that your opponents be adjacent to each other and within reach of the character.

So does that mean that if you are using a Bec de Corbin and Spiked Armor, you can make your attacks against opponents both 5' away with your Spikes and 10' away with your Reach Weapon?

Well,

are the opponents within 5' of you within reach? Yes.

Are the opponents within 10' of you within reach? Yes.

So when you Great Cleave your opponents, can you Cleave your 10' opponents with your polearm and your 5' opponents with your 'Spikes? If they meet the other conditions. They have to be adjacent to each other.

Can you think of any other conditions that have been written in the rules? I can't, but I'd sure like to find out about any before I put the feat on an official character record sheet with the intent of unknowingly doing something illegal. If you've got one, I'll be thanking you for it.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Jiggy wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I know the Rules Questions subforum is more concerned with getting ready for lawyer school than the actual roleplaying. ;)

That was mean, and I had thought you were better than that.

Quote:

I speak from experience here. You cannot attack with a spear and a kick at the same time. It simply does not work. You fall over. You open yourself up to attacks. It's a terrible technique.

Threatening at both ranges isn't about attacking with both at the same time, it's about being ready to attack with whichever one is easiest to hit the target with at any given moment.

KER-PRANK'D

C'mon, didn't you see the last part of my post? And here I thought I was making it too obvious. ;P

[sowhereaminow]

Actually this wasn't humorous until Straph admitted it was a joke on tbe first page, and people continued to post as if he was serious. Unfortunately the continued posting drew new people into tbe thread who missed the admission. Which is why I mentioned it on page 2 to give them a heads up. Figured tbe tbread would die naturally after that.

Public thread posts probably not the best format for this type of humor. It has to be blinding obvious to work.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Eh, I'm part of the "Yeah, BS" camp on Straph's little "April Fools" retcon (and I've actually been here since day one, so you don't have to educate me on this thread's history).

sowhereaminow wrote:

Public thread posts probably not the best format for this type of humor. It has to be blinding obvious to work.

There'll always be people who don't see the joke. Subtlety is worth it for the few times people get it. Because non-subtlety just ain't funny. :P

[thaX]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

stuff he said...

How about using Lunge and Great Cleave together?

[Scott Wilhelm]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Eh, I'm part of the "Yeah, BS" camp on Straph's little "April Fools" retcon (and I've actually been here since day one, so you don't have to educate me on this thread's history).

sowhereaminow wrote:

Public thread posts probably not the best format for this type of humor. It has to be blinding obvious to work.

There'll always be people who don't see the joke. Subtlety is worth it for the few times people get it. Because non-subtlety just ain't funny. :P

I guess I'm part of that camp as well.

Just as Paizo says what they say more than what they meant to say, so do we all. Straph's comments stand on their own merits regardless of their intent. And if he wants to dismiss his former arguments as jokes, I guess the continuing discourse should be mercifully short.

Anyway, I don't think people were arguing much about what he said about Great Cleave, which was directed at me personally. It's not as clear that he meant that as a joke, and I see no need to take it as one.

Also, I really don't want him to back out of an argument he believes in just because lots of people seem to disagree, and I'm concerned that that is what he did. I want him to formulate his arguments logically and philosophically, gather all the evidence he can find, and then either convince us all or be convinced himself. Even if everyone else plays the game some other way, if he can demonstrate his way is legal, he has the right to play it his way.

[Scott Wilhelm]

thaX wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

stuff he said...

How about using Lunge and Great Cleave together?

I don't see why Lunge doesn't stack with Great Cleave. So would the AC penalties, -4 between the 2 feats, but that's the price to pay...

[thaX]

Better choice than fiddle de rules bit. Really, the whole unarmed thing is mainly a Monk thing, since their damage goes up as they level.