Overpowered Rogue Needed!

[Ubernoob]

You are not a teacher here, Uber. Different paradigm.

When am I *not* a teacher?  When in the presence of a better teacher discussing what they teach better.  Unless I am in the presence of someone that outranks my ability in the area of focus then I am always assumed to be the teacher.  Teaching-It's what I do.

[AndyJames]

When am I *not* a teacher?  When in the presence of a better teacher discussing what they teach better.  Unless I am in the presence of someone that outranks my ability in the area of focus then I am always assumed to be the teacher.  Teaching-It's what I do.

You are not a teacher when it is a bunch of guys sitting around a table discussing things.

Also, assumption of arrogance = good teaching is false. People become resistant to the ideas of people they dislike. Psychology 101. By assuming superiority, you breed dislike towards you. Remember that your ideas and "teachings" mean jackshite if the other guy dismiss you out of hand. If you truly want to teach, learn how to grab the other guy's attention and have him actually *listen* to you.

What's-his-name up there is not listening to you. He is not taking anything significant away from your clash but resentment. As a teacher, you have failed in your primary function: Teaching.

[Ubernoob]

When am I *not* a teacher?  When in the presence of a better teacher discussing what they teach better.  Unless I am in the presence of someone that outranks my ability in the area of focus then I am always assumed to be the teacher.  Teaching-It's what I do.

You are not a teacher when it is a bunch of guys sitting around a table discussing things.

Also, assumption of arrogance = good teaching is false. People become resistant to the ideas of people they dislike. Psychology 101. By assuming superiority, you breed dislike towards you. Remember that your ideas and "teachings" mean jackshite if the other guy dismiss you out of hand. If you truly want to teach, learn how to grab the other guy's attention and have him actually *listen* to you.

What's-his-name up there is not listening to you. He is not taking anything significant away from your clash but resentment. As a teacher, you have failed in your primary function: Teaching.

AJ, do you really want to discuss the human mind with me?  Really?  You should know by now just how well I understand the human mind.

[AfterCrescent]

So let's touch a few things...

BTW, there's no such thing as having a feat, but not being able to use it.  There is only no longer qualifying for the feat at all, which is not what we're talking about.  Class granted bonus feats sidestep qualifications unless explicitly stated not.

Wrong! You can have a feat and not be able to use it since you don't qualify for it. They're actually the same thing. So you're playing semantics to say you aren't wrong when you are? Good job.

Poke around the gaming den a little.  It is *the* most respected forum for rules analysis on the internet.  It gained that reputation because they fucking read the rules.

Um, no it's not. Just because YOU respect it the most doesn't make it "*the*" most respected forum for rules analysis.

I'm not going to nitpick your points here and get in a RAW/RAI debate or any other debate. So as a neutral third party, please stop being an asshole, uber.

[AndyJames]

Actually, Uber, I only got your word and your boasts on it *shrugs* I am rarely impressed by self-aggrandisation.



Scratch that. Make that "...never impressed..."

[Ubernoob]

So let's touch a few things...

BTW, there's no such thing as having a feat, but not being able to use it.  There is only no longer qualifying for the feat at all, which is not what we're talking about.  Class granted bonus feats sidestep qualifications unless explicitly stated not.

Wrong! You can have a feat and not be able to use it since you don't qualify for it. They're actually the same thing. So you're playing semantics to say you aren't wrong when you are? Good job.

Poke around the gaming den a little.  It is *the* most respected forum for rules analysis on the internet.  It gained that reputation because they fucking read the rules.

Um, no it's not. Just because YOU respect it the most doesn't make it "*the*" most respected forum for rules analysis.

I'm not going to nitpick your points here and get in a RAW/RAI debate or any other debate. So as a neutral third party, please stop being an asshole, uber.

...
AC, what's the deal?  For the past two months or so you've had a bad habit of crashing down on me and calling me an asshole for being a howler.

Meg explicitly called for Gaming Den level howling.  I've done less than that and you're calling that too far.  Maybe you need to chat with Meg about what the goals of this forum are before you continue to hold your post.  She fucking cited the Gaming Den as a model to use.  What's the deal?

[AfterCrescent]

Really? I've come down on you? Other than this? Where?

But really, on topic - I'm not getting pissed with you telling people like it is. That's fine. But you need to remember TWO very important things.

1) Not everyone plays D&D like you do. Your way of D&D is not the 'right' way. Even if your way is the 'gaming den way,' that doesn't make it the right way.

2) You can be candid and to the point without being an asshat.  BG is NOT the gaming den. It's not. Just because Meg is okay with that level of howling, doesn't mean she wants it EVERYWHERE. I for one don't know specifically what she wants, as I'm not a mind reader, but I'm pretty sure she's said multiple times to cut new people some slack.

So in summary, stop being an asshat. You're not always right, thinking you are and talking down to people with opposing OPINIONS makes you sound like a douche.

[Ubernoob]

Really? I've come down on you? Other than this? Where?

I recall at least three instances in recent memory.  I'll find the exact threads if it really matters.

But really, on topic - I'm not getting pissed with you telling people like it is. That's fine. But you need to remember TWO very important things.

1) Not everyone plays D&D like you do. Your way of D&D is not the 'right' way. Even if your way is the 'gaming den way,' that doesn't make it the right way.

Explain what you mean here.  In this thread I've done nothing except say what the rules do.  I have made no statements at all about how to play D&D.  The fact that you think I do suggests that there is a miscommunication.

2) You can be candid and to the point without being an asshat.  BG is NOT the gaming den. It's not. Just because Meg is okay with that level of howling, doesn't mean she wants it EVERYWHERE. I for one don't know specifically what she wants, as I'm not a mind reader, but I'm pretty sure she's said multiple times to cut new people some slack.

Rules discussions are as impersonal as it gets.  If this level of candidness isn't welcome in Min/Max, then it isn't welcome at BG period.  If you're getting upset because someone is telling you that you are wrong about the rules... then maybe you aren't mature enough for BG yet.

So in summary, stop being an asshat. You're not always right, thinking you are and talking down to people with opposing OPINIONS makes you sound like a douche.

Of course I'm not always right.  I've just never been proven wrong once I've made an assertion yet.

Now that word "Opinions" is an interesting word.  It implies that there are opinions involved.  Let me ask you something AC.
Does science have room for opinions?  Does math have room for opinions?
Finding out how the rules work is just like finding out how the natural laws work.  You have lots of evidence to look at, but fundamentally there will only be one way that it works.  Either gravity works or it doesn't work.  Science has no room for opinions.  "Opinion" is a word that people without strong logic skills hide behind to attack logical argument.

Please, get your opinion out of my logic.

[AfterCrescent]

I recall at least three instances in recent memory.  I'll find the exact threads if it really matters.

If you could, PM them to me. I'm interested. I could be wrong.

Explain what you mean here.  In this thread I've done nothing except say what the rules do.  I have made no statements at all about how to play D&D.  The fact that you think I do suggests that there is a miscommunication.

I'll be as fair as possible. I'm going to reread this thread completely right now.

It also tells you when you DON'T have to meet the prereqs. So if it does both (which it does) what does it mean when it doesn't say anything? That's not RAW. Assuming it is/claiming it is makes an interpretation of the rules. Which means you are playing D&D in one way. Not everyone plays that way. It is not the 'correct' or 'only' way to play D&D. The system is flawed. Assuming/Hoping/Acting like it is not is fairly illogical.  Every game of D&D has houserules. So every game is different, please tell me you can see that?

Rules discussions are as impersonal as it gets.  If this level of candidness isn't welcome in Min/Max, then it isn't welcome at BG period.  If you're getting upset because someone is telling you that you are wrong about the rules... then maybe you aren't mature enough for BG yet.

I agree. Rules discussions SHOULD be as impersonal as it gets. Being candid is fine. You're at the very least "acting" as upset, if not worse than the OP.  I say acting because I don't know if you are upset, just as if you don't know if the OP was upset by your comment.  Very hard to tell tone/intent on the internet.

Of course I'm not always right.  I've just never been proven wrong once I've made an assertion yet.

Yes you have. Allow me to quote myself.

BTW, there's no such thing as having a feat, but not being able to use it.  There is only no longer qualifying for the feat at all, which is not what we're talking about.  Class granted bonus feats sidestep qualifications unless explicitly stated not.

Wrong! You can have a feat and not be able to use it since you don't qualify for it. They're actually the same thing. So you're playing semantics to say you aren't wrong when you are? Good job.

I bolded the part where you made an assertion and were wrong.

Now that word "Opinions" is an interesting word.  It implies that there are opinions involved.  Let me ask you something AC.
Does science have room for opinions?  Does math have room for opinions?
Finding out how the rules work is just like finding out how the natural laws work.  You have lots of evidence to look at, but fundamentally there will only be one way that it works.  Either gravity works or it doesn't work.  Science has no room for opinions.  "Opinion" is a word that people without strong logic skills hide behind to attack logical argument.

You said something that cannot be proven. (Your comment about the gaming den) Thus, it was, by definition, an opinion.
Also your comment about "always being a teacher" was very opinion-y and the focus of my initial comment.

Please, get your opinion out of my logic.

Yes sir.

[Maximiano]

Hmpf...This is interesting...
Uber, why you insist in acting like a freak? :rolleyes

HOW BIG IS YOUR EGO?

Listen...(or look, bah  )

A)You were on higher ground due to your expertise, which i won't deny.
B) I asked for tips
C) Received a non standard one
D) Showed how it seemed illogical based on my way of reading the rules.
(That wasn't wrong afterall as AC just showed you, exception based design was ambiguous)
E) You implied i'm stupid...

Uber...E)
This is the focus. Forget the rest.
This is why you become a asshole when posting and why AJ said that things about teaching.  -_-'
This is not the right way. That was my point all the time.
Are you stupid or insane? Doesn't seen so...
You think that's a good way to do things? You had some freaking teachers that did this to you?  Did you enjoy it? Or felt bad?

Because...as a respected, competent and envied teacher myself i  can assure you:
This is not a nice, respectful, polite way to teach. Most people don't like that and never will. It hurts then. But it is a way of teaching, bad one but a way nevertheless.
A shameful, aggressive and undesirable one. Suited for ...
I dunno... students that *like* to be mistreated or spanked .

I sure don't like it and that's why i replied to this whole thread after that :-\.
To see if i can beat some sense into this head of yours about how wrong you acted. Adjust this attitude of yours man/woman!  It is characteristic of stupid and aggressive people, which i'm sure you *need not to be* .
Whoever thinks they are superior to others (as human beings) just because of their abilities in some field of expertise is a complete GARBAGE .

Notice some things:
A) I didn't became less confrontational in my previous post because i accepted or liked your arguments. It was because you confirmed my expectations: saying the sage is on crack etc. It made me laugh a lot and improve my mood.Making me want to, as a final mission, show you how you've been a crap and try to change that.

B) In this post i'm not saying that you are indeed stupid, insane, ego master or a freak. I'm saying that you're acting like one. Just pay attention to the fact that attitudes can be changed. Essence cannot. I think you are a good person with a undesirable way of treating others, that's all. And that's why i'm trying to show you that you need to change such behavior.

Now please...
Speak of this matter without running from it. Using other arguments as a shield. Say how you feel about the way you acted yesterday. Let's see what is that passes on your head. Or if your Ego is so strong you won't even recognize your error.

PS: In case you forgot your error wasn't rules related at all, it was in social interaction: when you implied i'm stupid for no reason.

Now...let me add some smilies so you can understand the tone and mood which i'm speaking (typing ... whatever) things.

EDIT: Meh...added too much smilies but ... blast it.

[Sunic_Flames]

We don't read bold quote for Aelryinth.  We don't read bold quote for anyone.  This is BG.  Use the tags.

Edit:
I decided to read your bold just to be sure.  It seems you've become less confrontational.  Anyways, the best teachers I've ever had have used similar techniques.  Going easy on a student's ego is one of the worst things a teacher can do.  Only once the student knows how little they know can they really learn.  My best teachers have given me some powerful mental assaults.

Damn, beat me to it. I was just about to smack him for pulling an Aelryinth, then I saw the post wasn't really problematic. Never use bold in quote tags unless you want to be at ground zero for a nuclear assault.

Also, this is the CO forums. Anyone who knows their shit is automatically a teacher for anyone who doesn't. Likewise, anyone who knows their shit is automatically a teacher for anyone less knowledgeable than themselves.

Please, get your opinion out of my logic.

I'm stealing this.

Anyways, since I got owned by not reading page 3 first... What the fuck is with all the fucking smileys and talking in fucking circles?

Also, if someone gets all nanby pamby talking to me, I immediately and rapidly begin losing respect for them. If they can't look me in the eye and call me on whatever fuck ups I make directly so that those errors can be fixed it is impossible for me to regard them as my equal, much less my better and they are unsuited to the task of teaching me. Which is where most of my teachers in school fit in, as I not only knew the material better than they did before they taught it, but often knew their subject matter as a whole better than they did despite the whole not having gone through college thing to specialize in that one specific area. Or finished high school. Or middle school. Which makes me wonder what the fuck they're doing with their life, if a ten year old is outshining them in their area of expertise. I guess they took levels of Fighter while I took Wizard or something.

[Maximiano]

Sir, yes sir! Bold+quoting never again.

The problem isn't if he's a teacher or not.
The problem is how he does (or did until now) he's teaching. Which suck.

Going easy on a student's ego is one of the worst things a teacher can do.

And saying that they're stupid is even even even worse. 

[Sunic_Flames]

See the edit.

[Maximiano]

I saw it but i'm confused now.

Reading it seens that you always knew more things than your teachers. That is fine. I didn't get the part

If they can't look me in the eye and call me on whatever fuck ups I make directly so that those errors can be fixed it is impossible for me to regard them as my equal, much less my better and they are unsuited to the task of teaching me.

You're trying to say that if you made a question and the guy couldn't reply then you lost respect for him? 

Neither the talking in circles part. Do you think i did that? Can you point it out?
Or were you talking about someone else?

And the smilies...yeah they sucked. But leave them alone

[Braithwaite]

Finding out how the rules work is just like finding out how the natural laws work.  You have lots of evidence to look at, but fundamentally there will only be one way that it works.  Either gravity works or it doesn't work.  Science has no room for opinions.  "Opinion" is a word that people without strong logic skills hide behind to attack logical argument.

This is not science. Finding out how the rules work is less like finding out how the natural laws work, and more like finding out how civil or criminal laws work. You read the text first. Then try to figure out authorial/legislative intent. Analyze it in light of other rulings on similar topics and how a ruling will affect other matters beyond the immediate scope of the discussion. Then apply to the facts in question (and the exact facts matter a lot). Finally, the ruling is made by the judge who in this case is the DM, who has a wide latitude to decide either way as long as his rulings aren't completely arbitrary (or else he will be overruled/players will walk out).

Textual analysis has nothing to do with natural laws like gravity. Reasonable people can and do disagree on textual analysis, holding different opinions based on which analytical factors they regard as most important/applicable.

[Sunic_Flames]

I saw it but i'm confused now.

Reading it seens that you always knew more things than your teachers. That is fine. I didn't get the part

If they can't look me in the eye and call me on whatever fuck ups I make directly so that those errors can be fixed it is impossible for me to regard them as my equal, much less my better and they are unsuited to the task of teaching me.

You're trying to say that if you made a question and the guy couldn't reply then you lost respect for him? 

Neither the talking in circles part. Do you think i did that? Can you point it out?
Or were you talking about someone else?

And the smilies...yeah they sucked. But leave them alone

I'm saying if someone danced around the issue because they thought they were being 'nice' instead of not wasting my time and getting to the fucking point right away I would rapidly lose respect for them as they do not have the balls to come to me directly and say hey [Your Name], You're Doing It Wrong. Do this instead, it will work better. At which point I'd look at them like who the fuck are you but consider it and if they're right, instant respect. Course if they're wrong, they stay in the who the fuck are you pile. Compare to say what you're doing with the long post covered in smileys. I can't even read that without my eyes glazing over and taking it as blah blah fucking blah. Wasting my time is rude. Let's put it that way. Therefore 'politeness' that involves a whole lot of useless babbling is actually counterproductive.

[Omen of Peace]

- May I remind you of the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization ? The philosophy behind them is just as valid as the Gaming Den's (disclaimer: I'm completely biased because I adhere to this holy creed ).
Rules discussions are nothing like maths.

- I seem to remember Meg did not opt for high-level howling. It came down to "some howling is fine, the cardinal rule remains No Douchebaggery" IIRC. See there for instance.
Isn't Howling supposed to be directed at trolls anyway ?

- I have to agree that teaching by bruising people's ego will not work on a large number of people. I can see how it would work well on you, ubernoob, but different people learn differently.

@OP: sorry to continue the derailing of the thread.

[kurashu]

Did this whole flame war errupt from a disagreement about if a rogue can select any feat as a bonus feat or not?

Seriously? Wow. I'm going to get my barbeque tools and round up some hamburger patties.

[Ubernoob]

Hmpf...This is interesting...
Uber, why you insist in acting like a freak? :rolleyes

HOW BIG IS YOUR EGO?

Not as big as you'd think.  I just know the limits of my ability better than your average bear.

Listen...(or look, bah  )

A)You were on higher ground due to your expertise, which i won't deny.
B) I asked for tips
C) Received a non standard one
D) Showed how it seemed illogical based on my way of reading the rules.
(That wasn't wrong afterall as AC just showed you, exception based design was ambiguous)
E) You implied i'm stupid...

Uber...E)
This is the focus. Forget the rest.
This is why you become a asshole when posting and why AJ said that things about teaching.  -_-'
This is not the right way. That was my point all the time.
Are you stupid or insane? Doesn't seen so...
You think that's a good way to do things? You had some freaking teachers that did this to you?  Did you enjoy it? Or felt bad?

Feelings have nothing to do with learning.

Because...as a respected, competent and envied teacher myself i  can assure you:
This is not a nice, respectful, polite way to teach. Most people don't like that and never will. It hurts then. But it is a way of teaching, bad one but a way nevertheless.
A shameful, aggressive and undesirable one. Suited for ...
I dunno... students that *like* to be mistreated or spanked .

For higher level intellects you can't simply expect them to memorize.   You have to help them learn to learn.

I sure don't like it and that's why i replied to this whole thread after that :-\.
To see if i can beat some sense into this head of yours about how wrong you acted. Adjust this attitude of yours man/woman!  It is characteristic of stupid and aggressive people, which i'm sure you *need not to be* .
Whoever thinks they are superior to others (as human beings) just because of their abilities in some field of expertise is a complete GARBAGE .

Where did I ever tell you that I'm superior outside my field of expertise?

Notice some things:
A) I didn't became less confrontational in my previous post because i accepted or liked your arguments. It was because you confirmed my expectations: saying the sage is on crack etc. It made me laugh a lot and improve my mood.Making me want to, as a final mission, show you how you've been a crap and try to change that.

B) In this post i'm not saying that you are indeed stupid, insane, ego master or a freak. I'm saying that you're acting like one. Just pay attention to the fact that attitudes can be changed. Essence cannot. I think you are a good person with a undesirable way of treating others, that's all. And that's why i'm trying to show you that you need to change such behavior.

That's rather presumptuous of you.  You reduce yourself to the LCD and elevate yourself above that at the same time.  I'm not getting how the dichotomy works.

Now please...
Speak of this matter without running from it. Using other arguments as a shield. Say how you feel about the way you acted yesterday. Let's see what is that passes on your head. Or if your Ego is so strong you won't even recognize your error.

PS: In case you forgot your error wasn't rules related at all, it was in social interaction: when you implied i'm stupid for no reason.

Sure I had reason.  You didn't read the link I put in.  That's stupid.

Now...let me add some smilies so you can understand the tone and mood which i'm speaking (typing ... whatever) things.

EDIT: Meh...added too much smilies but ... blast it.

Smilies work so much less effectively than sound word choice.

Sidenote: How do you know I'm a good person?  That's a mighty big assumption on your end.  Frankly, making assumptions that large is a sign of stupidity.

Now, since you're posting here I'm sure you're above average intellect.  You are simply failing to show that in your posting.

[AfterCrescent]

Not as big as you'd think.  I just know the limits of my ability better than your average bear.

Heh, nice Yogi reference.

Feelings have nothing to do with learning.

That's not true. The human mind naturally closes itself off to people it views as dumb.  It takes conscious effort to listen to everyone for validity, and humanity does not have that kind of time. Thus, insulting someone often enough causes a connection in some people so that they view the offender as dumb and will close their mind to any possible validity in what the offender says.

For higher level intellects you can't simply expect them to memorize.   You have to help them learn to learn.

I could not agree more. This right here is wonderfully said. Here's the problem though, YOU aren't helping them learn.  Your logic is flawed.

Here's the thing. It's not an exception based design. Class featues state when you DO or DON'T need the pre-reqs. Thus if neither is true, you must default to the norm, unless there is another exception.  Here's the thing. There IS an exception. Page 301 of the Monster Manual states that it is acceptable to have bonus feats without the pre-reqs. There is a rule stating that the rogue trick works. So yes, you were right. But you didn't have sound logic to support your claim. It is damned near impossible to HELP someone learn if you can't explain the WHY behind it. And you failed to do that this time.

Sure I had reason.  You didn't read the link I put in.  That's stupid.

No, it's not. This is ONE forum. There are millions.  It is highly irreasonable to assume that just because you post a link, everyone reading the thread has to open it. That's why we have spoilers. So you can copy/paste important bits. The internet is not a safe place, not every link is safe, so expecting someone to click a link because you say so... yeah.