IIRC, we had close the debate until errata. Until then, it's DM choice.
Now Azbo, you have roughly participated in 3 threads, and you have successfully flamed anyone that didn't agree with you. Can you please lower your testosterone level and be a little more mindful of others ? You are basically the new guy here and you aren't starting up thing very well.
Point taken. Though moderately innaccurate I certainly am guilty of getting sucked into the flaming. I repsonded to one of your posts as well as many others on here with no flames even if you disagree. I'm capable of rational discussion without flames (look on the myths thread) I'm just not that willing to have "pseudo authorities" run me over with repeated postings of the same flawed logic. They ask you to point out where their math is wrong, you do, and they skip it and move on to another personal attack. It's a little annoying to have the same people keep posting the same obvious innaccuracy despite being shown the errors in their math.
Truthfully many of the threads I've contributed to had glaring errors in logic and math and that was coupled by angry young boys with a chip on their shoulder that being wrong on a forum was tantamount to a call for a duel. You might want to look at which side of each equation is escalating the testosterone first. There are a pair of ego-maniacal posters who think their own typed word is gospel. I followed some links from this forum and SQLD is engaged in flames everywhere he goes. From arguing that Cleric's can use holy avengers as holy symbols even though every class has it's list of possible implements defined in the class. He took this to the next level by saying Custserv was wrong as well. Though if you read cleric implements and paladin implements under the classes it's pretty clear in both RAW and RAI that cleric's can not use them. He tries to take omission to mean permission. I understand the circular logic used to get to clerics using them - the weapon says it's a holy symbol and clerics can use holy symbols therefore clerics can use HA's. It's still obvious that they can't, the most specific wording about HA's is that they're a special holy symbol that can be used with paladin powers from the implements section. If they could be used with other powers they wouldn't specify paladin. No where else under any type of implement does it specify like that and it's meant to eliminate clerics else why bother adding it? He goes so far as to imply that until someone gets it put in errata he feels it's a printing error... Is this really a credible position? He and I happen to be interested in the same topics so we're reading the same forums and some of his logic is so convoluted it's difficult to not reply. Kuro is also in this same demographic as evidenced below.
Wall of text
Struck a nerve, much?
Don't worry, kid. I'm not going to act like your mother. Until you learn some proper respect, I will act like that uncle you used to really like but that stepped in when your parents failed to spank you. Except I won't be spanking you, that's the moderator's job (sorry Meg, couldn't resist).
This is pretty ridiculous even for you. LOL @ calling me kid like your internet jab is getting under my skin? LOL no one is shooting at me you can assume I'm laughing at you. call me kid if it makes you feel better. I'll call you internet superhero and we'll call it even. I'm picturing you in your leotard and cape in the basement of your moms home typing as I write this.
You could have thirteen PhDs and I'd still tell you to punctuate better (specially since you seem fond of explaining your thoughts at length. But if you cut back on the flaming, I estimate your posts would be 20% shorter). Paulo Coelho has published a dozen books and is a best-selling author worldwide (there is no justice in the world, I tell you...) and his writing skills STILL suck, with no real grasp of the Portuguese language whatsoever. I'd probably not nag on you about this if you were polite, however. I have my pet peeves too, but I do my best to keep them OUT of the discussion so as to not derail the thread (and if I fail to do so it is from a lack of willpower, not courtesy).
This is your excuse why it's ok for you to take the threads off topic with your pedantic flames and bad for me? ok I'm on the same page now, only you are allowed to be condescending and aggressive. incidently is the irony lost on you that half your posts in response to me are flames?
Also, here's something for you to consider. Hypothetical scenario: the power's not called Wall of Fire, it's called Wall of Light (or Darkness, or whatever). It is identical in every way except for the title, fluff text and damage type. Is it still "undisputable" that it fits into the same description as hindering terrain because it's the most approximate thing?
is there a point here? we're discussing wall of fire. I would say no there's no difference other than you're transparently making up a hypothetical situation that is not in the list of examples given under hindering. This is pretty simple stuff. If it makes movement more difficult by one it's difficult. If it causes damage it's hindering. If it blocks movement it's probably blocking but could be hindering. If it blocks LOS but does not change movement it's obscuring. There's a highlighted box on the right of page 61 that you seem completely unable to read. I'm open to your interpretation here please tell me what type or types you think the wall of darkness and wall of fire could be? You have six choices. I'm open to something being more than one type because nothing says it can't be. Are you suggesting you would like to make a 7th type? Or are you saying wall of fire is just regular terrain with no effect? It really has to be one of those 3 choices. Please define your position so everyone can read how you would rather obtusely defend a untenable position than change your mind or admit you're wrong. Try answering this question for both WoF and your hypothetical WoD
A) new terrain as defined by kuro
B) one or more of 6 listed terrain feature types from page 61 (please be specific as to which type or types)
C) wall of fire is not terrain and should be treated as open ground for rule and effects..
We both know you won't answer this question as asked. As does everyone else reading. You're like a slippery politician avoiding difficult questions.
This HAS been argued to death, to no real conclusion. I suppose we could try CustServ on this (if they haven't been tried already), though I don't really trust their rulings as far as I can toss them into a pit of lava.
Of course, everyone is wrong except you, this is a classic out that when eventually someone does get a custserv ruling it won't be what you want so you'll denegrate their authority ahead of time so you can continue to say you're not wrong.