Dead horses: stuff that's been debated all across the playground

[Jowgen]

In what is probably just begging for horrendous thread-derailing, I thought it would be a nice idea to dedicate a thread to the dead horses of topics. The kind of things that come up over and over again, get debated for page upon page, and more often then not everyone just kinda walks away disgruntled. Stuff that even makes the toughest rule-lawyers consider taking a live-and-let-live approach to rule-reading.

I'm thinking of a nice simple format of: "This be my favorite dead horse, and I'mma tell you why."

To start off, my favorite dead horse is the Dragonwrought Kobold. There are lots of things to like about that dead horse (e.g. deli-loads of cheese), but the reasons it's my favorite is how incredibly hair/scale-splitting talks about it can get. It is the only dead horse I know where the exact release dates, table-compositions, wordings and so on and so forth of all the relevant materials are argued about in such interconnected detail, all to answer the simple question as to whether is counts as a True Dragon or not.

[atemu1234]

Monk debates. Monk debates suck to the point we need one thread to be stickied to be looked at prior to posting a thread on how monks totally don't suck guys, look at all those attacks.

[AmberVael]

Bloodlines. The rules are written with contradictions and confusion, there are popular interpretations based in pure speculation and houserules, and there's really nothing that can ever make the debate conclusive one way or another. Its not as thread devouring as some other arguments, but its basically impossible to lock down a 'correct' answer.

[ben-zayb]

I'm gonna go with Tumble vs Thicket of Blades, simply because it's the one that I often come across in actual games, where each DM had their different calls and RAW support for calling so.

[AvatarVecna]

Alignment.

[Kurald Galain]

In what is probably just begging for horrendous thread-derailing, I thought it would be a nice idea to dedicate a thread to the dead horses of topics. The kind of things that come up over and over again, get debated for page upon page, and more often then not everyone just kinda walks away disgruntled. Stuff that even makes the toughest rule-lawyers consider taking a live-and-let-live approach to rule-reading.

"My edition is better than your edition!"

"My friend doesn't believe that wizards are the best class ever, so we're going to have a duel that I'm sure will settle the issue forever, could somebody please make me a 1st level wizard that can beat a 20th level fighter?"

"Monks."

[Psyren]

"FAQ vs. RAW vs. RAI vs. RACSD vs. insert-abbreviation-that-proves-me-right-here."

[Marlowe]

I suppose my nemesis dead horse would be Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats, and whether one or the other favours certain classes, what level of point-buy is "fair", or whether rolling for stats even happens.

[Inevitability]

"Hey guys, I know class X is tier Y, but what if we did thing Z?"

[eggynack]

"Is the FAQ RAW?" It's just a thoroughly boring argument, with little in the way of nuance, and it's especially horrible because its answer serves as the underpinnings for a number of rule struggles. Basically, any time there's an argument, and an FAQ entry can serve as a reference, you can spontaneously mutate that normal argument into an FAQ argument if you're losing. And it just goes nowhere.

[frogglesmash]

I've seen a fair number of threads get derailed discussions concerning the exact level of godly power wizards possess. That and posts that reiterate multiple times the steps one should take when dealing with a bad Player/DM.

[Thurbane]

[Marlowe]

A horse is a horse
of course of course
and a horse can be a curse, of course
especially when that cursed horse
Is among the walking dead.

[Larkas]

"My game sucks because of [insert motivation here]. What should I do?" Really, you can't put yourself in anyone's shoes, let alone someone you just barely know from an online board. How the heck should you know what to do? Besides, frequently you post a reaction you find reasonable, only to be thoroughly ignored by the OP. If all you really wanted was to unburden yourself from a recent negative experience, I'm sure there are better ways around it.

[Seto]

Alignment.

"Should this Paladin fall ?"

[Elandris Kajar]

This martial build has a chance against a level 20 Wizard, while they depend on a dozen spells to get close to wizard level.

[Brookshw]

ToB, Fumbles, Diplomacy, Genesis, Fighters. VoP, dark chaos shuffle.

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

[Urpriest]

Warbeasts. I've had the same argument "no, you can't just turn your animal companion into a warbeast, warbeasts are bred, read the handle animal rules from 3.0" dozens of times, and pretty much every time it comes up I have to start over again.

[Umbranar]

For me the "GitP Regulars as [Insert concept]" thread are the the ones I just leave aside and dont even look into anymore. The first two were funny but know its like trying to perform CPR on the dead horse over and over and over again...

[Psyren]

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

This was one of the more minor reasons I switched to PF but it was definitely a reason. Though I still maintain that Ice Assassin is not quite as all-purpose as many seem to think it is.

For me the "GitP Regulars as [Insert concept]" thread are the the ones I just leave aside and dont even look into anymore. The first two were funny but know its like trying to perform CPR on the dead horse over and over and over again...

+1

[Rakoa]

ToB, Fumbles, Diplomacy, Genesis, Fighters. VoP, dark chaos shuffle.

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

Let me just change your tune regarding Mind Rape with a nice dose of MIND RAPE!

[ben-zayb]

Let me just change your tune regarding Mind Rape with a nice dose of MIND RAPE!

No need, I already made an Ice Assassin to hunt and replace Psyren.

[AvatarVecna]

Pun-Pun says "knock it off and get back on topic".

Incidentally, that's another thing I'm kinda really tired of: Pun-Pun.

*Promptly implodes for some reason*

[Psyren]

No need, I already made an Ice Assassin to hunt and replace Psyren.

You can't afford me, honey (which incidentally means there are no parts of me in your spell component pouch.)

*z-snaps*

[A Tad Insane]

Trying to make a sorcerer beat the "batman wizard"

The only way to do it is turn your sorcerer into a charisma wizard, or not let anyone be a "batman wizard" to begin with

[Werephilosopher]

What happens when you persist time stop?

[Kurald Galain]

{scrubbed}

[Gabrosin]

{scrubbed}

Can't tell if this got scrubbed or is just meta.

[Amphetryon]

"[Thing] isn't as broken as the community says because [reason]," where [reason] is based on incomplete understanding of the RAW or specific house-rules in play. The regulars know what the Oberoni Fallacy is, but I think 3 - 5 threads a week could be prevented by having a definition of this and the other commonly known RPG-related fallacies stickied prominently.

[atemu1234]

Trying to make a sorcerer beat the "batman wizard"

The only way to do it is turn your sorcerer into a charisma wizard, or not let anyone be a "batman wizard" to begin with

To be fair, I wouldn't really call this a dead horse. I've only ever seen one real forum debate over it.