I need ULTRA CHEESE

[Bauglir]

Well, I suppose not reading my posts would explain why yours have nothing to do with them, though I'm wondering why you bother quoting me if you aren't actually replying to me. You just seem to be vaguely ranting into the ether about something nobody's talking about.

I;m not ranting at all. At a glance it seemed you were whining about how Dragon Disciple doesn't work after level 9 and asked if there was some mechanic to 'fix' it. Yes, retrain into something better said me. But apparently you were off in theoretical land playing around in some fallacy of who knows what rather than discussing something, real.

Yes, see, it was a joke about how silly RAW is. It doesn't matter now, the joke is dead, but apparently you completely missed it. I'm still not sure how you parsed out of my posts that I was asking for a mechanic to fix it, when my point was that such a mechanic is entirely unnecessary for the joke to have had a valid premise. Other than your flat statement that you didn't actually read them, which, as I said, explains a lot and isn't really any kind of defense.

[JaronK]

Actually as I stated, Dragon Disciple worked just fine at the time it was printed. Later rules screwed it up and never cared to fix it. Yes, it does fall to the DM to make a judgment call it him self on how it should interact with the newer rules.

And what exactly is so terrible with that? This is literally what you, me, everyone here, and your DM does every single time we reference a 3E rule in a 3.5 based thread. For example, Magic Item costs were rescaled for 3.5, and thus every 3E item's price is incorrect for the new wealth set up for 3.5.

...So, you don't know what the Oberoni Fallacy is then?

Oh I know another good one, how many times have you suggested Unseen Feyli? As a 3.0 resource, there is no such thing as LA and it's original printed notes it is intended as a Special Mount (forgot which) and its example thereof is at least +1 to it's effective mount level, yet people claim it's LA is +0 and playable for PCs.

Actually, it says an Unseelie Fey Gnome is LA +0, so there's most certainly such thing as an LA and it's written down.  It's also not a special mount, I have no idea where you got that idea.  The only example Unseelie Fey is a Gnome, which is very hard to ride for most PCs (I'll just leave the obvious implication hanging there).  And it's called Unseelie Fey, not Unseelie Feyli (where the heck did you get that one?).  Finally, it's from Dragon Compendium (page 222), which is 3.5.  You really need to try reading the rules sometimes.  You don't seem to know them at all.

JaronK

[Maat_Mons]

Actually, there's an unseeli unicorn on page 67 of Dragon #304.  SorO_Lost just seems to have completely missed the 3.5 update of the template. 

[JaronK]

Ah, he just assumed there could not possibly be a 3.0 update, never asked, and assumed he was right without reading.  Yeah, that's typical.  Was it actually called an Unseelie Fayli in that dragon?

JaronK

[SorO_Lost]

Actually, there's an unseeli unicorn on page 67 of Dragon #304.  SorO_Lost just seems to have completely missed the 3.5 update of the template. 

Google hits always point to the Dragon Compendium (which is apparently 3.5), which I've only cared to read long enough to check the template - not a fan of dragon material here - which maintains a lack of LA entry. And then I googled some more and went to the source which explains why the template lacks LA, it's 3.0 rules. And at JaronK, if you read Dragon Mag #304 you would understand why I said it's Special Mount (think it's also listed as an option to summon via spells to), but then you would have to read the rules rather than the forums...

In fact, knowing the template still lacks an LA entry in 3.5, and taken into account given how examples are almost entirely inaccurate rule representations, it's pretty easy to run off on a tangent that Unseen Fay is completely unplayable. But that is best for another time however, can I call dibs on naming the fallacy of using examples to prove anything? I want to call it the Abjurant Fallacy, named after the well known Abjurant Champion's example's use of Mage Armor setting off the it stacks spark until the Errata said it didn't.

Was it actually called an Unseelie Fayli in that dragon?

Nah, it's just lack of correct spelling on my part.

...So, you don't know what the Oberoni Fallacy is then?

Isn't it the one where horribly broken material fixed by the DM is still horrible broken material?

Because this is a rules conflict. Dragon Disciple at the time of it's printing really did work, later introduced rules created a problem within it and no official material has mentioned how to update things. Using a 3.0 analogy is fairly accurate, even if one of my examples is technically a different unnamed fallacy instead.

[JaronK]

Google hits always point to the Dragon Compendium (which is apparently 3.5), which I've only cared to read long enough to check the template - not a fan of dragon material here - which maintains a lack of LA entry. And then I googled some more and went to the source which explains why the template lacks LA, it's 3.0 rules.

So... you read some forum entries you found on google instead of the rules, and thus thought it was 3.0 rules.  And never noticed the LA entry in the 3.5 rules, evidently.  Which is weird, because most google results mention the 3.5 rules and that it was updated in Dragon Compendium.

And at JaronK, if you read Dragon Mag #304 you would understand why I said it's Special Mount (think it's also listed as an option to summon via spells to), but then you would have to read the rules rather than the forums...

I read the 3.5 rules (Dragon Compendium) which do include a Level Adjust and say nothing about special mounts.  That's how I knew what the rules were.  You just admitted you got confused and just googled around.  Lemme guess, you looked here http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/unseeliefey.shtml and then stopped?  Though I'm surprised you still wrongly think 304 is the current source.

In fact, knowing the template still lacks an LA entry in 3.5,

It does not.  Read the rules again.  Notice the LA of an Unseelie Fey Gnome.  It's written right there.

and taken into account given how examples are almost entirely inaccurate rule representations,

But RAW unless they contradict what they're an example of.

it's pretty easy to run off on a tangent that Unseen Fay is completely unplayable. But that is best for another time however, can I call dibs on naming the fallacy of using examples to prove anything? I want to call it the Abjurant Fallacy, named after the well known Abjurant Champion's example's use of Mage Armor setting off the it stacks spark until the Errata said it didn't.

It's only a fallacy if you cite an example over text rules.  If the Example is all there is, it's RAW.  There is no rule out there that says examples aren't RAW (but text has priority, then table... after that everything else).  But you're right, you should get a fallacy that involves just calling something logically correct a fallacy just because you really want it to be false.  A SorO fallacy, let's say.

...So, you don't know what the Oberoni Fallacy is then?

Isn't it the one where horribly broken material fixed by the DM is still horrible broken material?

The fact that a DM can fix a problem does not mean it wasn't a problem in the first place.  For example:

Later rules screwed it up and never cared to fix it. Yes, it does fall to the DM to make a judgment call it him self on how it should interact with the newer rules.

And what exactly is so terrible with that? This is literally what you, me, everyone here, and your DM does every single time we reference a 3E rule in a 3.5 based thread.

That's an Oberanni Fallacy.  Mostly because you didn't read long enough to realize the point was "isn't it funny how these rules work" so your rant about how DMs would fix those rules when they came to them was just an Oberanni Fallacy.

Because this is a rules conflict. Dragon Disciple at the time of it's printing really did work, later introduced rules created a problem within it and no official material has mentioned how to update things. Using a 3.0 analogy is fairly accurate, even if one of my examples is technically a different unnamed fallacy instead.

But no one was talking about that at all.  Instead, Bauglir was mentioning something he found funny in the way the rules were written in a thread about abusing how the rules are written.  And yes, it is funny that this class kicks you out as a capstone by RAW.  Your long rant about why the rules were like that and how DMs could and would totally fix that situation when they came to it was both an Oberanni Fallacy in context and completely irrelevant to the point.

JaronK

[Halinn]

[Bauglir]

Guys, fuck dinner, let's just play some Risk.

[Lycanthromancer]

Just take Iron Heart Surge, and Surge enemies out of existence.

Guys, fuck dinner, let's just play some Risk.

That's what he/she/it said.

[Rebel7284]

This reminded me of this thread

[Saxony]

This reminded me of this thread

[Bauglir]

I just realized that we've all been fools.

[SorO_Lost]

So... you read some forum entries you found on google instead of the rules, and thus thought it was 3.0 rules.

Are you suggesting I pirate the Compendium? Really, read the book your self.
Dragon Compendium, page 223 (the gnome example is page 222), the Unseen Fey Template rules has no LA entry.
Rest of your post is you ignoring I said that, you telling me to read the book when you clearly never have, and some other in general stupid shit I never really pay any attention to. I already conceded that Unseeli was perhaps not the best example, mentioned naming the fallacy of claiming example are the rules the "Abjurant Fallacy" - named after the well known Example's use of Abjurant Armor working with Mage Armor - and moved on.

I was a bit off in my description of it. Still:

<snip>Because this is a rules conflict. Dragon Disciple at the time of it's printing really did work, later introduced rules created a problem within it and no official material has mentioned how to update things.<paraphrased>Much like anything from 3E and really any time you pick and choose a certain printing of a rule printed in multiple books or whatever order of the rules you like best.</paraphrased>

Weather or not you choose to call it Oberoni is your choice, to me it is a rules conflict.

Guys, fuck dinner, let's just play some Risk.

Only if I can use my Army Men as my troop tokens. They look better (D&D minis work the best)

[Bauglir]

A failure to say something is not a statement of the opposite. Silence in the rules never creates a conflict. By your logic, no PrC outside of Core is legitimate because the DMG's lack of printing them trumps their having been printed.

[JaronK]

There's also no other base classes, Celerity doesn't exist, and so on.

Basically, SorO thinks core only is RAW, and all other books have no actual rules in them.

JaronK

[SorO_Lost]

It's not what I'm saying at all and have for the second or third time in a row been quoted clear out of context to further your retarded persistence in wasting time and bogging the thread down with your childish remarks. Both of you know exactly how many times I have ever conceded my personal opinions (or really anyone else on the internet ever) making further whining nothing more than baiting.

So where is the hook? Hell it's only JK misreading things and Bauglir baiting, I need a little more incentive here. For crap's sake, even in omfg RAW RAWR RAW land DD still works anyway. DD's capstone isn't granting a free LA-less usage of a template nor to any of the class features even stack with the Half-Dragon template. It just hand's over a template that has no regard to what or how you got it. A Fighter could pick up ten levels in DD and show the same exact stat block even if you prioritized the newer prerequisites rules over the original because you only lose those nonuseful class features. You're not out here proving a point, your obvious not so fucking stupid to believe I'll just change my mind with the crap flying out of your computer, this is just good ole fashioned trolling because you can't stand someone disagreeing with you and though your self-delusion you think you must correct me. Even I do better than that, learn to pick your fights.

[Bauglir]

So your defense of your opinion is that you never change your opinion? Really? Then don't post. Problem solved. Otherwise, expect people to disagree when you say stupid shit. Or prove why it wasn't stupid, which you've thus far failed to do.

Here's the thing. I made a joke that relied upon the reader
A) knowing that a 10th level Dragon Disciple doesn't meet the prerequisites for that prestige class and
B) that, as of Complete Warrior (which conflicts with nothing in the DMG, because the DMG was utterly silent on this possibility, much as it was on the subject of Bear Warriors and Thinaun, because the authors had not considered the possibility), not meeting the prerequisites for your prestige class (after you wrote it) meant you lose the qualifications for that prestige class. Therefore,
C), a 10th level Dragon Disciple loses the Half-Dragon template (because that is clearly a class feature that isn't explicitly listed among those kept in Complete Warrior). I assumed, for the sake of the joke, that
D) meeting the prerequisites after losing them causes you to regain your class features.
Then I linked the reader to a principle of logic that made the joke complete.

Now, you objected to this on the grounds that Dragon Disciple is unoptimized, and therefore when Complete Warrior was released, nobody bothered patching Dragon Disciple to work with the new rules, and that furthermore a Dragon Disciple is so unoptimized that nobody would ever play one, so this would never come up. All of this is completely true, or is probably true. I do not dispute it!

What I dispute is your conclusion that because nobody bothered to fix the Dragon Disciple, the Dragon Disciple has been fixed. Or that optimization was in any way relevant. What I dispute is your decision to march into the thread and tell people they were wrong without even knowing what they were saying, and then acting like that was such a good idea that it automatically protects you from all criticism.

Wait. I take it back. This has all been a clever joke, hasn't it? Surely assuming a contradiction as a premise in an argument that involves the principle of explosion is an attempt to fool me into arguing against a man who isn't serious. There's no other explanation, because somebody who actually believes X therefore Not X would be too stupid to turn on his computer. That is the only possibly reason for this to have happened. Kudos, sir. We have been trolled mightily. I declare this thread won.

[Daniel678]

Wait. I take it back. This has all been a clever joke, hasn't it? Surely assuming a contradiction as a premise in an argument that involves the principle of explosion is an attempt to fool me into arguing against a man who isn't serious. There's no other explanation, because somebody who actually believes X therefore Not X would be too stupid to turn on his computer. That is the only possibly reason for this to have happened. Kudos, sir. We have been trolled mightily. I declare this thread won.

Let there be cake for everyone.

[spoiler][/spoiler]