Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008852I got the feeling that the Flinger and the Blob were mostly "Hey, look at the goofy shit you can do within the rules, isn't this wacky?"

I don't expect many people actually used them.

I think that's the case with most of the more extreme (greater than 'strictly better option' builds, by my own categorization). If they were intended for use in game, there would be more 'get spellcasting and martial combat, without paying the offset cost' type builds floating around on the internet, and fewer '1st-level kobold can be a god (with DM collusion)' or 'commoner poultrymancer of the apocalypse.'

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008852I got the feeling that the Flinger and the Blob were mostly "Hey, look at the goofy shit you can do within the rules, isn't this wacky?"

I don't expect many people actually used them.

Yeah. To me they serve to point to weaknesses in the rules that maybe should be plugged (or invitations to think about what makes sense versus the places where rules and lack of sanity-check rulings could break down). Or just "hey isn't this wacky?", as you wrote.

In this case, I think bolas are too reliable at high-DX, and want some sort of saving throw by the defender, and the Thrown Weapons talent probably shouldn't let you throw them on the turn you ready them - in fact, I don't see bolas being the kind of thing you can generally treat as a compact immediately-ready ammo supply, and probably want a fair amount of free space to use well/safely.

War boomerangs are also big things that it's not easy to carry a bunch of at the ready, so I take it as a heads up that a rul(e/ing) is wanted for those who try.

And the stats/rules for throwing up to 12 shuriken at a time do want some investigation - 1d-2 per hit is probably too much damage at the high end against unarmored targets, especially in a barrage, which sort of points to the weakness of cumulative damage anyway.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1008765How many systems outside of d20 even have this problem to begin with? Maybe some editions of Shadowrun?

ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

Quote from: Omega;1008968ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

Seems to me that's not any game - it's anyone failing to read the rules properly.

Quote from: Skarg;1008972Seems to me that's not any game - it's anyone failing to read the rules properly.

No. Sometimes its the players reading the rules properly. Just not the way you or I might read the rules properly. Even when the rules seam clear as day someone will for whatever reason interpret them differently. So yes it is any game.

To paraphrase Grom -

Show me on the doll where the bad players touched you.

Quote from: Omega;1008968ANY game. ANY.

It doesnt matter how locked down your rules are. How simple or how complex. Someone will either deliberately or accidentally misinterpret them. I have seen this so many freaking tiimes. This isnt even taking into account the "Well the rules dont say I cant." types who utterly abuse that phrase to the point it has lost its original intent.

ANY game.

"No, I won't allow that.  And don't be a dickweevil."

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008724The question is why the hell are you playing a game that makes it possible for a player to  manipulate the rules to become infinitely powerful?

Because someone started the thread. And also because of 3.5/Pathfinder, Rifts, Shadowrun, Exalted, V:tM, and a host of less popular games;)!

Quote from: Omega;1008980No. Sometimes its the players reading the rules properly. Just not the way you or I might read the rules properly. Even when the rules seam clear as day someone will for whatever reason interpret them differently. So yes it is any game.

It seems to me clearly false that all games can be read/interpreted properly to have rules loopholes that make a basic character invincible.

On the other hand you get a lot of GMs overreaching to stuff that isn't really very powerful at all. For example my 3.5ed DM banned warlocks because I was able to fly at will and shoot lasers at will despite my lasers being really weak because I killed one t-rex out in the open by flying out of its reach and slowly zapping it. At least have me be attacked by pterasaurs or something.

Quote from: Skarg;1009076It seems to me clearly false that all games can be read/interpreted properly to have rules loopholes that make a basic character invincible.

I agree.

Some game rules are written poorly in that they are ambiguous, contradict other rules, or even contradict other parts of the self-same rule. Some people will willfully misinterpret a well written rule. And some people are just bad at reading and understanding and therefore will, without malicious intent, misinterpret even a well written rule. At best, all that proves is that

"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

Quote from: Bren;1009280"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

(hands Mr. Bren a gold medal)

Quote from: Bren;1009280I agree.

Some game rules are written poorly in that they are ambiguous, contradict other rules, or even contradict other parts of the self-same rule. Some people will willfully misinterpret a well written rule. And some people are just bad at reading and understanding and therefore will, without malicious intent, misinterpret even a well written rule. At best, all that proves is that

"All rule sets can be either interpreted or misinterpreted to have a rules loophole that makes a basic character invincible."

I'd need examples of invincible (or nearly invincible) basic characters for each of the game systems that I am familiar with before I'd accept even that modified premise.

The classic example of poorly written, ambiguous, misinterpereted rules ever is the wargame DBA. The actual rules are only 4 pages, but for well over 25 years now people have been having the exact same arguments about how they should be played. 4 pages, 3 decades of the same arguments. Makes D&D look positively ironclad.

(scritches his head)  Seems to me that if you choose to play a game with only four pages of rules, you're accepting that (a) it's either a very simple game to play, or (b) there's a lot of latitude in interpretation.  Arguing for three decades over how to play a game with four pages of rules is God's way of telling a person that he needs some quieter hobby.

Oh, the same people who debate these rules claim that they are only four pages because that is all they need to be, simple and elegant, playable by the average 8 year old, etc. They are written like a legal contract.