Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[Bobkin]

So quote some rules to support your position.

The DM is not RAW. That is a fact.


What the DM may choose to do with RAW is his choice. That doesn't make it RAW.


My position here is that you people have made a mockery of the basic rules of the game and are actually bullying people.


RAW is RAW. A DM makes an interpretation of this and intends to modify what is written for his game is not RAW. That's an interpretation of RAW.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The DM is not RAW. That is a fact.


What the DM may choose to do with RAW is his choice. That doesn't make it RAW.


My position here is that you people have made a mockery of the basic rules of the game and are actually bullying people.


RAW is RAW. A DM makes an interpretation of this and intends to modify what is written for his game is not RAW. That's an interpretation of RAW.

I'll take that as a "no".

Until you have something substantial, I'm done responding to your posts. Have a nice day.

[Bobkin]

I'll take that as a "no".

Until you have something substantial, I'm done responding to your posts. Have a nice day.

RAW is RAW.


The DM is not RAW.


Interpretation is not RAW.


Good day.

[Jormengand]

Ah. I get it.

PIT FIEND HUMILIATION! DREAD FIGHTER KING COMBO 7 REVEALED!

It all makes sense now...

[Bobkin]

Ah. I get it.

PIT FIEND HUMILIATION! DREAD FIGHTER KING COMBO 7 REVEALED!

It all makes sense now...

Thanks, Edge Maverick.


I sincerely cannot believe it is this hard to understand what "typical" means.


If every Pit Fiend was played the way that Beheld suggested, then the tactics would reflect this.


"then the tactics would reflect this."


"then the tactics would reflect this..."


"then the tactics would reflect this......"


Go on. Show me the mental backflips it takes to make Beheld's Pit Fiend the typical Pit Fiend.


Or maybe.... hm..... just maybe.... RAW is.... RAW?....

[Beheld]

What are rules, I've never heard of these things, why would I cite to rules to back up my point when I can just chant RAW IS RAW over and over.

So just real quick for those of us in the back, where does the premise of the topic say "typical Pit Fiend"? Because it doesn't look to me like the OP says that. So if you could explain where you're getting that, that would be great.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What are rules, I've never heard of these things, why would I cite to rules to back up my point when I can just chant RAW IS RAW over and over.

Careful, if you chant "RAW" three times in a row, you'll summon Pun Pun.

[Bobkin]

What are rules, I've never heard of these things, why would I cite to rules to back up my point when I can just chant RAW IS RAW over and over.

For someone who blatantly throws walls of text at people - ABOUT RAW - to not understand the defintion of "typical" is pretty god damn amazing to me.


Listen
to
yourself
.


How can a typical Pit Fiend be anything but the Pit Fiend described in the MM?


How can a typical Pit Fiend be instead the one you make up?


How hard is it to shut down that childish little brain of yours for two whole seconds and "think".


In what universe do people take an interpretation of RAW as being RAW? And how do you defend this when it clearly contradicts the "typical" as written?


Can you please ****ing quit it? Enough with this childish bull****.

[Beheld]

for someone who blatantly throws walls of text at people - about raw - to not understand the defintion of "typical" is pretty god damn amazing to me.


Listen
to
yourself
.


How can a typical pit fiend be anything but the pit fiend described in the mm?


How can a typical pit fiend be instead the one you make up?


How hard is it to shut down that childish little brain of yours for two whole seconds and "think".


In what universe do people take an interpretation of raw as being raw? And how do you defend this when it clearly contradicts the "typical" as written?


Can you please ****ing quit it? Enough with this childish bull****.

so just real quick for those of us in the back, where does the premise of the topic say "typical pit fiend"? Because it doesn't look to me like the op says that. So if you could explain where you're getting that, that would be great.

t e n c h a r a c t e r s

[Bobkin]

t e n c h a r a c t e r s

m
o
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

g
o
a
l
p
o
s
t
.


"Typical is whatever I say it is!"

"How do you even know the word "a" means "typical"?


I'm arguing for you now.


Here's a hint: You get to be wrong today. I'm sure you were wrong before now. But, you are especially wrong today.


Anything else Lord Cartman Maverick?

[Beheld]

m
o
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

g
o
a
l
p
o
s
t
.


"Typical is whatever I say it is!"

"How do you even know the word "a" means "typical"?


I'm arguing for you now.


Here's a hint: You get to be wrong today. I'm sure you were wrong before now. But, you are especially wrong today.


Anything else Lord Cartman Maverick?

Strange that you openly admit you are moving the goalposts.

Cosi has correctly pointed out that there is no justification for your claim that a typical Pit Fiend is what this thread is about.

So while I appreciate you rambling incoherently about what you think typical is, but there doesn't appear to be any justification for you claim that this is about a typical Pit Fiend in the first place.

[Bobkin]

Strange that you openly admit you are moving the goalposts.

Cosi has correctly pointed out that there is no justification for your claim that a typical Pit Fiend is what this thread is about.

So while I appreciate you rambling incoherently about what you think typical is, but there doesn't appear to be any justification for you claim that this is about a typical Pit Fiend in the first place.

This is exactly the kind of mental backflips I would expect from a complete child who cannot and will not admit that he is wrong.


"A Pit Fiend" = "A typical Pit Fiend".

"A Pit Fiend" != "Beheld's Fantasy Pit Fiend from Fantasia."


Your previous argument being that based on RAW, anyone's intepretation of the Pit Fiend is "a typical Pit Fiend" especially one that behaves totally differently compare to the one described. I'm going to remind you of this, since you are incapable of understanding what "goalpost moving" means.


RAW is RAW. You can ignore this rule day and night and it will still not make your poor arguments, mental backflips, insults, and goalpost moving any more credible or logical. I do find, however, that it does make it more obvious that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Beheld]

This is exactly the kind of mental backflips I would expect from a complete child who cannot and will not admit that he is wrong.


"A Pit Fiend" = "A typical Pit Fiend".

"A Pit Fiend" != "Beheld's Fantasy Pit Fiend from Fantasia."

Weird, where I come from adjectives are modifiers that change the meaning of the noun. But I guess if you hail from a different location where you can just decide that when people say one thing, you can add adjectives without changing the meaning, then this is purely a language difference that isn't going to get anywhere.

Your previous argument being that based on RAW, anyone's intepretation of the Pit Fiend is "a typical Pit Fiend" especially one that behaves totally differently compare to the one described. I'm going to remind you of this, since you are incapable of understanding what "goalpost moving" means.

If my contention is that this thread has always been about a Pit Fiend that uses tactics not described in the tactics entry, including by the OP, and the person the OP is quoting, before this thread even existed, how does your repeated claim with no evidence demonstrate a failure on my part to understand goalpost moving? I clearly know what it means, I'm just telling you that you are wrong because the goalposts have always been where I am claiming they are. You could theoretically provide some evidence that this isn't the case. But we both know you won't.

RAW is RAW. You can ignore this rule day and night and it will still not make your poor arguments, mental backflips, insults, and goalpost moving any more credible or logical. I do find, however, that it does make it more obvious that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

You have not provided a single citation to your claim that this is a rule. I do not believe it is. You have no evidence it is. I guess we are just stuck here until you cite a rule ever about anything. So basically, until the end of time because you will never do that.

[Bobkin]

You have not provided a single citation to your claim that this is a rule. I do not believe it is. You have no evidence it is. I guess we are just stuck here until you cite a rule ever about anything. So basically, until the end of time because you will never do that.

RAW is RAW is rule. I don't have to prove that.

"Some random guy named Beheld's interpretation of RAW" != RAW. I don't have to prove that either.

The fact that you think you aren't wrong is sad.


Pit Fiends are Pit Fiends. If you want a specific version of one played by someone who thinks that the RAW entry is wrong about how a typical Pit Fiend will behave, then make one in a different topic that isn't 32 (33) pages long where some guy named Beheld is trying to argue up and down a cliff about how his ability to do mental backflips prevents him from being wrong.


Seriously. You're wrong. The MM says so. It's too bad you can't enjoy being wrong. I'm sure you'd be on the verge of an orgasm by now.

[Beheld]

RAW is RAW is rule. I don't have to prove that.

"Some random guy named Beheld's interpretation of RAW" != RAW. I don't have to prove that either.

The fact that you think you aren't wrong is sad.


Pit Fiends are Pit Fiends. If you want a specific version of one played by someone who thinks that the RAW entry is wrong about how a typical Pit Fiend will behave, then make one in a different topic that isn't 32 (33) pages long where some guy named Beheld is trying to argue up and down a cliff about how his ability to do mental backflips prevents him from being wrong.


Seriously. You're wrong. The MM says so. It's too bad you can't enjoy being wrong. I'm sure you'd be on the verge of an orgasm by now.

RAW is RAW is a tautology not a rule, it doesn't actually come up anywhere in the rules. In fact, I don't think "Rules as Written" is a phrase that exists anywhere in the DMG, PHB, or MM.

But to be clear, when you repeatedly restate the RAW is RAW tautology, you aren't just saying the contentless statement you are saying, you are implying that some previous thing is a rule.

It sounds like the main claim you are trying to justify is "RAW is RAW. CR, intellect, abilities, summons, tactics."

While that statement... doesn't actually mean anything on it's own, because you accidentally a verb, still if you want to establish that it is RAW, you should probably cite to the rule.

I agree in theory that the Rules as Written are in fact the Rules as Written, but I don't think the thing you are claiming is a written rule. So if you could cite to the actual rule, and tell us what page of what book that rule is written on, we can then agree that this is a rule that is written.

[Jormengand]

RAW is RAW is rule. I don't have to prove that.

Show us the rule that you're referencing.

[Bobkin]

RAW is RAW is a tautology not a rule, it doesn't actually come up anywhere in the rules. In fact, I don't think "Rules as Written" is a phrase that exists anywhere in the DMG, PHB, or MM.

Do you even hear yourself saying this?

It sounds like the main claim you are trying to justify is "RAW is RAW. CR, intellect, abilities, summons, tactics."

While that statement... doesn't actually mean anything on it's own, because you accidentally a verb, still if you want to establish that it is RAW, you should probably cite to the rule.

RAW being that CR includes summons. But, in your mind it excludes things you don't like that don't help your incredibly childish argument.


What part of childish do you not get?

I agree in theory that the Rules as Written are in fact the Rules as Written, but I don't think the thing you are claiming is a written rule. So if you could cite to the actual rule, and tell us what page of what book that rule is written on, we can then agree that this is a rule that is written.

Here's what you're not getting:

Saying that RAW isn't RAW and it isn't a rule, is not an argument.


Does that register to you at all? Do you have anymore mental backflips you wish to scrounge up today?

[Bobkin]

Show us the rule that you're referencing.

rule
noun

"one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."


Enjoy.

[Jormengand]

rule
noun

"one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."


Enjoy.

No, I mean, "Show us which of the rules of Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition says that a monster is never allowed to deviate from its listed tactics ever on pain of death". I think you comprehend that that's what I was asking you.

[Coretron03]

So, using Bobkins logic, A Pit Fiend=A typical Pit Fiend, shouldn't A Fighter=A typical Fighter? Meaning that if the fighter ahould be a typical fighter, not a fighter thst pretends to be a rogue, hiding and attacking people from suprise (Which I severely doubt is what somebody thinks when they think of fighters), meaning that the presented fighter build shouldn't be used, as it's not a typical fighter.

Of course, this assumes that Bobkin's logic is correct, something that I disagree with.

[Beheld]

RAW being that CR includes summons. But, in your mind it excludes things you don't like that don't help your incredibly childish argument.

..............

It's really weird, because I'm one of the people who actually cited that rule and argued for that, and that seems to have nothing to do with any claim you are making at any point in this conversation.

Here's what you're not getting:

Saying that RAW isn't RAW and it isn't a rule, is not an argument.

If you read my actual post, you can see that I actually said Raw is Raw, because that's a tautology, and while being meaningless, tautologies do usually end up being true. But for a specific claim to be a Rule as Written, it has to be written somewhere in the rules. So if you want to make a claim about for example, Pit Fiend tactics being a rule, you have to cite to the written rules you think establish that.

[Jormengand]

Of course, this assumes that Bobkin's logic is correct, something that I disagree with.

But RAW is RAW, evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters, the moon astral projections were faked, tinfoil commoners can defend against mind control, my attack has no defence.

[Anthrowhale]

This thread may be going off the deep end, and I personally am going to be pretty busy for the next week or two.

Nevertheless, I think some good points have been made.

1) What is the win condition for a fighter? Would "wins initiative and kills before the Pit Fiend acts" work? What about "Pit Fiend teleports away"?

2) A Pit Fiend and his army is not a Pit Fiend. If a particular DM wants a Pit Fiend to always have an army, then there are simply no encounters with Pit Fiends that are EL 20. In a real game, either the encounter level is going to be explicitly adjusted by the CR of army members or it's going to be the informal adjustments on page 39. Either way, the encounter level goes up as it obviously should.

3) Consistent with (2) I'm shifting my stance a bit on the Summons/Creations. I think it's wrong to use Summons/Creations in EL calculations for encounters with a Pit Fiend based on the "accounted for in CR" remark on page 37, as long as they are summoned or created as a part of the encounter. If they are encountered separately from the Pit Fiend, I believe the encounter level should be Summon/Creation CR, possibly adjusted slightly down for the Summons as it cannot chain Summon.

4) I'd like to point out that Mummy Fear does not work on the Halfling Sniper, because of the ring of Freedom of Movement negates paralysis. Hence, the only possible victim of Mummy Fear is the Pit Fiend.

5) There are rules for casting spells surreptitiously in the Rules Compendium under the sleight of hand skill. Since the spell casting rules have been used in this thread as the primary motivation for triggering the ring of invisibility loudly, this strongly suggests that Sleight of Hand (Sleight of Mouth?) can be used to evade detection. The rules there say that words can be "mumbled" but (oddly) this is opposed by Spot rather than Listen. That seems unreasonable given invisibility, so opposing by Listen for the mumbling part makes more sense.

[Bobkin]

So, using Bobkins logic, A Pit Fiend=A typical Pit Fiend, shouldn't A Fighter=A typical Fighter? Meaning that if the fighter ahould be a typical fighter, not a fighter thst pretends to be a rogue, hiding and attacking people from suprise (Which I severely doubt is what somebody thinks when they think of fighters), meaning that the presented fighter build shouldn't be used, as it's not a typical fighter.

Of course, this assumes that Bobkin's logic is correct, something that I disagree with.

Read the opening post for god sakes man.

It's not "A Fighter".

I mean if it was "A Fighter" this wouldn't be 33 Pages long!

[Beheld]

2) A Pit Fiend and his army is not a Pit Fiend. If a particular DM wants a Pit Fiend to always have an army, then there are simply no encounters with Pit Fiends that are EL 20. In a real game, either the encounter level is going to be explicitly adjusted by the CR of army members or it's going to be the informal adjustments on page 39. Either way, the encounter level goes up as it obviously should.

3) Consistent with (2) I'm shifting my stance a bit on the Summons/Creations. I think it's wrong to use Summons/Creations in EL calculations for encounters with a Pit Fiend based on the "accounted for in CR" remark on page 37, as long as they are summoned or created as a part of the encounter. If they are encountered separately from the Pit Fiend, I believe the encounter level should be Summon/Creation CR, possibly adjusted slightly down for the Summons as it cannot chain Summon.

I don't think "consistent" means what you think it means.

I think "Mummies and Summons do increase the EL" and "Mummies and Summons don't increase the EL" are in fact about as far as you can possibly get from consistent.

5) There are rules for casting spells surreptitiously in the Rules Compendium under the sleight of hand skill. Since the spell casting rules have been used in this thread as the primary motivation for triggering the ring of invisibility loudly, this strongly suggests that Sleight of Hand (Sleight of Mouth?) can be used to evade detection. The rules there say that words can be "mumbled" but (oddly) this is opposed by Spot rather than Listen. That seems unreasonable given invisibility, so opposing by Listen for the mumbling part makes more sense.

I'd love to know which of your three skills you are giving up for Sleight of Hand, Spot, Hide, or MS. I'm sure this will in no way backfire in the detection minigame at all.

[Bobkin]

No, I mean, "Show us which of the rules of Dungeons and Dragons Revised Third Edition says that a monster is never allowed to deviate from its listed tactics ever on pain of death". I think you comprehend that that's what I was asking you.

Thanks, Edge Maverick.

The DM "chooses" to deviates from RAW, not the monster. Show me where it says in the MM that Pit Fiends automatically deviate from their typical behavior. Show me where it says that their typical behavior is invalidated because of someone's interpretation of RAW.

You can't. You won't.


Go do your homework.

[Bobkin]

..............

It's really weird, because I'm one of the people who actually cited that rule and argued for that, and that seems to have nothing to do with any claim you are making at any point in this conversation.



If you read my actual post, you can see that I actually said Raw is Raw, because that's a tautology, and while being meaningless, tautologies do usually end up being true. But for a specific claim to be a Rule as Written, it has to be written somewhere in the rules. So if you want to make a claim about for example, Pit Fiend tactics being a rule, you have to cite to the written rules you think establish that.

This is the most mental nonsense I've ever read in my life.

A DM's interpretation of "Pit Fiend"

IS
NOT
RAW!


There is no debate here. You are wrong. Go home. The MM will never say "Beheld's interpretation is actually typical behavior for a Pit Fiend."


You have no more mental backflips. You are out of quarters. You have no more ground to stand on. You have zero continues left.

Being childish is not an argument.

[Jormengand]

Thanks, Edge Maverick.

Show. Me where. The monster. Is bound. By. Their. Listed. Tactics. At. All. Times.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Show. Me where. The monster. Is bound. By. Their. Listed. Tactics. At. All. Times.

If he could provide that information, he would have by now; he has no evidence, only assertions.

[Bobkin]

Show. Me where. The monster. Is bound. By. Their. Listed. Tactics. At. All. Times.

Show me where in the MM it says "Pit Fiends MUST deviate from their typical behavior."

Show me where it says "The DM's interpretation of RAW is RAW".

Show me how a typical Pit Fiend knows that the first Fighter it encounters is smarter than satan and adequately engages it based on anything but typical behavior.


You won't. You can't. You have no argument. You're refusal to accept what's written is not an argument.

Got it, Edge Maverick?