Dodging to another square

[Supplement Four]

My "tone" is percieved by you. I admited only to making a sarcastic comment. Ease up. I'm trying to help you here, but you get defensive when anyone tells you that you are wrong. I'm sorry that you feel so offended, but I also hope that my explanation finally helped you get this straight.

I'm not "wrong" about anything here because I'm asking a question. I haven't put forth any statements as to "this is how it is". My questions have been, "so is this how it is?"

I do understand the rule. If you're surrounded, you get a -2 penalty to your dodge.

What I'm not clear about is the reasoning, considering the Dance Aside maneuver.

And, you were being rude. As I said, if you feel that way, then please just don't answer the question. I'll either figure it out on my own, or someone else will help me.

Jeez. I didn't even want to bring up using the Dodge Defence along with a move action or something.

See, this comes across like you're calling me an idiot. It's plain rude. And, you know what you're doing when you do it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I stopped reading your reply when I saw your tone. But, now I'll finish reading it.

DUDE...lol. Surrounded means that there's people surrounding you! There is no "surround rule", just Multiple Combatants. Focus.

I was clarifying what you said. Surrounded to me means "completely surrounded". There are 8 squares that touch a combatant's square. If all 8 are filled with bad guys, then he's completely surrounded. If only 7 are filled, then he's not.

Your earlier comment was that 4 bad guys could surround a combatant due to the squares they threaten. I was clarifying where you got that. It seems now, you've changed your tune on what surrounded is. Before, you said it was just 4 bad guys. Now, you're saying 8.

Huge difference.

No. Dodging is not inherently moving. Not at all.

If you're standing right in front of me, and I swing my 3' sword at you, the only way you're going to dodge my blow is to move. Period.

You may not move out of your five foot square, but you're going to move.

Dodging is movement. It may be less than one square movement, but it's still moving.

You need a clear/friendly adjacent space to dodge without taking a -2 penalty to your Dodge defence. Full stop, end of story, no movement at all.

That's what the rule says. But, I'm asking "Why?"

If you never move out of your five foot square when Dodging, then why do you need an additional five feet in order to dodge?

That's what the question has been all along.

 

[Supplement Four]

Look.

You occupy a center square around whic ther are 8 squares. With me? Look at a grid if necessary.

Eight (8) opponents can occupy surrounding squares. If seven (7) squares are occupied, one square is unoccupied, and thus Dodge Defence is not penalized. Alternatively, if any of those eight (8) squares is occupied by a friendly creature (fellow party member, your personal warhound or horse, the non-combatant princess you're trying to rescue, etc.) then your Dodge Defence is likewise not penalized.

Yeah, I know. You're saying exactly what I said earlier.

That's the rule. I understand the mechanics. I don't understand the logic.

When choosing to utilize one's Dodge Defence, you are not afforded any bonus movement.

OK, so all dodge movement must be done within the 5' square. That's understood.

So...why do we need more space than that in which we are allowed to move?

If you cannot move outside of the 5' square when dodging, then why do you need additional space beyond that 5' square?

That's the question.

 

[Supplement Four]

There is no mention of "movement", the word "move" is never used, and, in fact, Move Actions are handled in a separate section altogether, which likewise makes no mention of "dodge".

You're wrong. There is mention of "movement". I will highlight it in bold for you:

From page 173, Conan 2E. A dodging character needs at least one adjacent square to either be unoccupied or be occupied by friendly creatures to be able to dodge effectively. He need not necessarily move into the space as part of his dodge but he does need a certain amount of room to move around in. If at least one adjacent square is nt unoccupied or friendly, the character has a -2 penalty to his Dodge Defense.

As you can see, movement is definitely referenced. Also note that the dodging character "need not necessarily move into the space as part of his dodge." This means he doesn't have to move into the space but could.

 

[Sutek]

Well...no. You still aren't seeing the big picture. You can declare either Dodge or Parry, but you can still take move actions during a round exclusive of those declarations, because Dodge and Parry are declared against attacks.

But that confuses the issue and is more in speaking to "what you can do during a move action" than it does Dodge or Parry. However, just remember that Defence declarations whenever you have a "chance to defend" yourself.

But, more to the point...you don't need "extra space". You can have occupied friendly spaces adjacent to you and still suffer no penalty.

VVV
VYV
VVA

Y (you) can still Dodge without penaly because Y has A (ally) adjacent. There's no "space" there, but no penalty is accrued because one of the two criterea are met.

Now, you can Move and declare a Dodge, but Dodging does not mean that you get to move into adjacent squares. Do you see the difference? Defence declaration is a response to an attack and Movement requires a Move Action.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm going to use Sutek's example of the 15' x 15' in with the closet.

Remember, the question isn't about the rule. We all understand it. I know I have since posting the first post (unknown to Sutek who keeps telling me what the rule is over and over).

What I'm asking here is not a question about the mechanics of the rule. The mechanics are simple. If you've got an open or friendly occupied square touching yours, then you can dodge with no penalty. If not, then you get a -2 penalty to your dodge.

Easy-cheesy. Got it.

The question, though, has always been "Why"?



Look at Sutek's 15' x 15' Inn.

Key:
O = Open; V = Villian; G = Guard;
T = Table (blocked square);
A = Ally; Y = You

Here's the layout of the combat in the Inn.

OTT
TAT
VVVY

By the rules, Y cannot dodge, but A can.

Why is this?

Answers like, "Well, because the rule says that you have to have an open square to be able to Dodge," is not what I'm looking for.

I'm looking for reason. Logic. Why is it that A can Dodge but Y can't?

That's the question.

 

[Sutek]

Okay. I see now. You don't want to follwo a rule simply because the rule exists, you have a deep seeded need to apply some form of Sup4 logic to why the rule operates the way it does rather than merely accept it at face value. (lol)

Well, if you imagine that villains with swords are standing next to you, within weapon reach, and you want to duck and bob and weave to avoid thier attacks, choosing to narrowly avoid thier strikes instead of block them or knock them aside with your weapon, then it makes a certain amount of sense that you'd need to feel that you could safely do so. If one of your adjacent squares (and you only need one) is either unoccupied or occupied by a friendly creature, then situations are safe enough that you don't feel aprehensive when Dodging and get to use yout full Dodge Defence value.

However, if the situation isn't ideal and you don't have that open or friendly space nearby, you do feel a little less able to defend yourself by Dodging, and so must take a -2 penalty as a result.

So...that was the anecdotal reason.

The mechanical reason is that Dodge should have conditional penalties. It makes senes that if opponents or obstacles are on all sides, then, abstractly speaking, it should make Dodging more difficult. However, other mechanics will also be in effect if this -2 penalty is incurred. Very likely there will be Flank Bonuses awared to opponents, and ther can also be a very high cumulative Multiple Combatant bonus for the opponents as well. So, the designers gav the minimum D20 penalty (-2) under resonable in-game, combat grid conditions so that the penalty would not be incurred often, but when it was, it would be small but consequential.

However:

On page 173 of the 2E rulebook, it says, "A dodging character needs at least one adjacent square to either be unoccupied or be occupied by friendly creatures to be able to dodge effectively. He need not necessarily move into the space as part of his dodge but he does need a certain amount of room to move around in."

That reads to me as if the dodging character has a choice of moving into the adjacent square.

On page 205 of the 2E rulebook, the Dance Aside combat maneuver is discussed, basically stating that if the character has DEX 13, and if the attack is less than half the Dodge Defence, then the dodging character can make a five foot step into another square.

So, my question here is: If a character has DEX 12 or less, then why does he need that extra space described in the first paragraph? He can't move into that square anyway. So, why put the restriction?

As you can see, your new assertion that you just want to know "why" is also false, because your original question was based on a false assumption: That Dodging allowed movement into another square.

I'll go a step further.

You can move and Dodge, because the two rules are mutually exclusive. Dodge and Parry are responses to attacks, and Moves are switching to new squares on the combat grid based on Base Move and other criterea (such as 5' Step). You clearly started off curious as to why a 13DEX character with Dance Aside could take a 5' step when Dodging, but a 12DEX character without Dance Aside could not, and I've pointed out that your assumption was based on the false premise that simply declaring a Dodge Defence afords any movement at all. This assumption is incorrect.

It should be extremely clear now how this works.

 

[Supplement Four]

Okay. I see now. You don't want to follwo a rule simply because the rule exists, you have a deep seeded need to apply some form of Sup4 logic to why the rule operates the way it does rather than merely accept it at face value. (lol)

Absolutely. I don't use rules just because some writer of some book told me to. The rule needs to make sense.

If your Conan book said, "Every sixth combat round, apply a -2 penalty to the attacker," you wouldn't take that at face value, would you?

Maybe you would.

I wouldn't. I would want to know why the -2 penalty was being implemented every sixth combat round, and so would my players.

Well, if you imagine that villains with swords are standing next to you, within weapon reach, and you want to duck and bob and weave to avoid thier attacks, choosing to narrowly avoid thier strikes instead of block them or knock them aside with your weapon, then it makes a certain amount of sense that you'd need to feel that you could safely do so. If one of your adjacent squares (and you only need one) is either unoccupied or occupied by a friendly creature, then situations are safe enough that you don't feel aprehensive when Dodging and get to use yout full Dodge Defence value.

But...this doesn't work...it doesn't answer the question "Why".

OTT
TAT
VVVY

It answers your Ally's reason for being able to Dodge to the open square, but it does not answer why You can't Dodge effectively.

However:

On page 173 of the 2E rulebook, it says, "A dodging character needs at least one adjacent square to either be unoccupied or be occupied by friendly creatures to be able to dodge effectively. He need not necessarily move into the space as part of his dodge but he does need a certain amount of room to move around in."

That reads to me as if the dodging character has a choice of moving into the adjacent square.

On page 205 of the 2E rulebook, the Dance Aside combat maneuver is discussed, basically stating that if the character has DEX 13, and if the attack is less than half the Dodge Defence, then the dodging character can make a five foot step into another square.

So, my question here is: If a character has DEX 12 or less, then why does he need that extra space described in the first paragraph? He can't move into that square anyway. So, why put the restriction?

As you can see, your new assertion that you just want to know "why" is also false, because your original question was based on a false assumption: That Dodging allowed movement into another square.

Actually, what it is...is the same question worded a different way. You weren't "getting" what I was asking, hitting me over and over with the actual game rule mechanic, than actually putting some reason as to why extra space is needed in order to Dodge effectively.

Because, that's what we're talking about. The Dodger needs space. He doesn't need just a side with no attacker--otherwise, the Y character in the closet above would be able to Dodge effectively.

The rule requires space to be open (or occupied by a friendly) somewhere around the Dodger.

Why space?

Why extra space? It's doesn't read as "no attackers". IT's SPACE THAT IS NEEDED!

And, this implies movement, doesn't it?

Why would you need extra space while dodging unless you needed it to move into while you were dodging?

So...if it is space that is needed (and that's exactly what the rule says, because a Dodge "doesn't have to necessarily move into that space"), then why can't the Dodging person move to that space if his DEX is 10? Or any level of DEX below 13?

That's been the question all along.

It should be extremely clear now how this works.

Again, the mechanics of the rules are crystal. I've never had a problem understanding them.

But, you really haven't logically stated why it is A can Dodge and Y can't.

Answer that, and we'll have an answer to this question.

OTT
TAT
VVVY

 

[Vortigern]

I dropped out of this thread because I could feel this flavor of brickwall logic discussion coming on again... but ... I find myself coming back. I'll have to think about why later.

Anyway.

I think the 'need not' language in the dodge rules simply refers to the potential movement of a character and basically simply states that the character doesn't 'have' to have moved in order to get a fully effective dodge. I see it more as a 'non-movement permissive' statement, to make sure that people are not thus requireing at least five feet of movement to allow a character to dodge properly.

As for the 'being surrounded' or 'cornered' clause, it is not to my logic a space requirement... S4 you seem to be placing your logical emphasis on that aspect of it, but the open space isn't the focus. You can meet the requirement with an occupied allied space, as has been shown.

So, that being true, what is it that this rule represents? It isn't space, it isn't someone to guard your flank.

The rule represents phenomena of being 'cornered', either in a tight space or surrounded. A harried and 'attacked from all angles' state. If you are stuck in a closet, it is much easier to find yourself in that position.

But that still isn't about having 'enough room' to mount a defense. Since once 'can' still dodge'. It just reflects that it is more difficult, and that your defense is under more pressure... and thus penalized.

There are varying ways this is already expressed in the rules, with flanking etc. This just seems to add a little extra/similar tactical realism to the situation, specifically concering dodge defense etc. Especially since they can apply at the same time for example.

So, to me, there is no conflict or reduduncy between regular dodging and the combat manuever.

And for what it is worth, I'd say you've seemed rather defensive in this thread S4. And... you 'have' been saying things about the rules as practically factual that people have been differing with you on, and then saying you 'aren't wrong because you were asking a question, not making a statement'.

This is part of the problem. If you ask a question that is based upon a given set of presuppositions, don't be taken aback so much when people say they consider the question misplaced because they disagree with the foundation of the question itself rather than your answer to it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think the 'need not' language in the dodge rules simply refers to the potential movement of a character and basically simply states that the character doesn't 'have' to have moved in order to get a fully effective dodge. I see it more as a 'non-movement permissive' statement, to make sure that people are not thus requireing at least five feet of movement to allow a character to dodge properly.

I can buy that.

As for the 'being surrounded' or 'cornered' clause, it is not to my logic a space requirement... S4 you seem to be placing your logical emphasis on that aspect of it, but the open space isn't the focus. You can meet the requirement with an occupied allied space, as has been shown.

The presumption is the allies allow movement into their space. Thus, an allied occupied space is akin to an open space.

The rule represents phenomena of being 'cornered', either in a tight space or surrounded. A harried and 'attacked from all angles' state. If you are stuck in a closet, it is much easier to find yourself in that position.

But that still isn't about having 'enough room' to mount a defense. Since once 'can' still dodge'. It just reflects that it is more difficult, and that your defense is under more pressure... and thus penalized.

This is probably the best justification of the rule that I've heard so far.

And for what it is worth, I'd say you've seemed rather defensive in this thread S4.

Riiiiight. And, it was me, not Sutek, that went down the pissy road first.

Give me a break. Good lord.

And... you 'have' been saying things about the rules as practically factual that people have been differing with you on, and then saying you 'aren't wrong because you were asking a question, not making a statement'.

Consider it if/then type statements.

They were meant to clarify the information I was trying to grasp--not posit fact.

Read the entire thread, top to bottom, and you'll see that.

 

[Sutek]

The presumption is the allies allow movement into their space. Thus, an allied occupied space is akin to an open space.

Well, there....you know you gotta be el-wrong-o. No one EVER occupies the same space on the combat grid EVER! Even when Grappling.

If your Conan book said, "Every sixth combat round, apply a -2 penalty to the attacker," you wouldn't take that at face value, would you?

Well, I'd actually read the rules and see if there was some rationalle for it, because that's a rather steep penalty, but taken at face value, it reads like some form of Fatigue, and I'd play it as written and if I then found that my group didn't like it as written I might consider a change. I might come here and ask how people felt about it, if they thought that it was meant to be an non-specifically stated Fatigue rule, amongst other questions. Frankly, these rules are written well, though, and such a rule would be defined by it's penalty type, by reinforcing copy, and possibly by fluff entries. I'd read all of these and see if they all made sense together...and if people on the forums directed me to those as sources explaining the rule, I'd make a decision about whether I still wanted to use it or not, thank everyone and move on.

That isn't what you're doing. You ask a question about something, with a preconcieved opinion or explanation in mind, and won't be deterred by logic, example, citation or illustration.

And it's not just me:

The rule represents phenomena of being 'cornered', either in a tight space or surrounded. A harried and 'attacked from all angles' state. If you are stuck in a closet, it is much easier to find yourself in that position.

But that still isn't about having 'enough room' to mount a defense. Since once 'can' still dodge'. It just reflects that it is more difficult, and that your defense is under more pressure... and thus penalized.

This is probably the best justification of the rule that I've heard so far.

I said that exact thing several posts back. :roll:

Reading an entire thread doesn't do any good, Sup4. We are trying to help you with a problem, typically, and somewhere around post 30 you either (A) change your premise or (B) you get defensive/beligerant and start claiming that people are "against you". Now, I usually step up to the plate and confront you right away so that I'll be the focus of your derisivenes and ire, but you seem to have completely avoided a crucial clue in Vortigern's post above: "I could feel this flavor of brickwall logic discussion coming on again"

That's you he's talking about. An entire thread was created where people vented about your argumentative spaculations and pretty regular stubborness, not to mention that you're new to this game and the people giving you all this advice and clarification...AREN'T.

We're here to help when people have problems or questions, if people don't want to listen, it gets anoying real fast. No thread here discussing rules should last longer thaqn about 25 posts. Seriously. I can confortably say that I know these rules REALLY well, but you know what? I'm also wrong about rules and get corrected A LOT. What's the differnce? I listen, realize when I'm wrong, and take it away and enjoy this great game and fantastic forum full of brilliant fellow RPG and Conan enthusiasts.

My last word of advice to ya, Sup4: Just chill, dude. 8)

 

[Supplement Four]

If your Conan book said, "Every sixth combat round, apply a -2 penalty to the attacker," you wouldn't take that at face value, would you?

Well, I'd actually read the rules and see if there was some rationalle for it, because that's a rather steep penalty, but taken at face value, it reads like some form of Fatigue, and I'd play it as written and if I then found that my group didn't like it as written I might consider a change.

That's what I thought. You're a sheep.

Me, I'm not going to arbitrarily implement a rule where every sixth round of combat a character takes a -2 penalty just because the book says thats what I should do.

It's got to make sense.

Hell, it could be a type-o or an unintended section of a rule that was left when part of it was cut-n-pasted to a new edition of the rule book.

Not Sutek, though. Noooo. He's the sheep. He's going to play it right down the line, as written, sense or no.

More power to ya.

Not for me, though.

My last word of advice to ya, Sup4: Just chill, dude. 8)

I can send some advice your way too. Try thinking for yourself instead of blindly following the rules.

Typically the rules are good. Typically the rules makes sense. But, when they don't, use your noggin'. :shock:

 

[Vortigern]

S4 I'm not sure what you hope to achieve here?

Others have said before that your passion for the setting and game are infectious and have spurred more debate/exchange on this forum than has been seen recently. And I agree.

But the same people are the ones telling you constantly that you are overly defensive and argumentative.

I'm becoming certain this is just a part of your personality. Perhaps you are just accustomed to an environment where he who refuses to stop asserting/defending their opinion wins. But that isn't the usual course here... and in fact makes me think less of someone's argument/logic.

Repetitive restatement rather than discussion, acting as if the listener just doesn't 'get it' or they would agree with you, and belittling people with a different view... ( Sheep? That was obviously intended to be insulting. ) These are not instruments of the reasonable cool-headed debate/exchange you say you are looking for about things.

I'm going out on a limb here and am going to simply say my full perception/opinion for once. I usually don't, for a variety of reasons. But here goes.

You seem accustomed to being the leader in any given social group. Your gaming style as described, to me, further illustrates this in how you seem to direct your players rather than letting them play/direct themselves to a large extent. You don't seem accustomed to having your assertions/ideas challenged, because you immediately respond aggressively to any contrary assertions, and this could be because again you are accustomed to getting your way and being in charge in your group.

This seems to have impacted your ability to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas and true debate on things once your 'defenses' are up. You seem fine when discussing things a lot of the time, but when you start getting defensive about something... it doesn't seem like anything is going to move you, even a clear layout of facts that show you are mistaken. Instead, you cycle further and further into the aforementioned defensive behaviors until other people give up and you get the last word. I get the impression you come away from that getting the last word experience with a feeling of accomplishment or victory.

It is neither. Spinning your wheels until people just don't want to talk to you anymore isn't the same thing as 'winning' the argument on a logical and factual level. The argumentative methods you seem t0 employ on a instinctive level may actually achieve the desired results to some degree in actual face to face interaction... but again, it wouldn't be because you 'convinced' someone of something... but annoyed the heck out of them until they didn't want to argue anymore.

If you want to have meaningful conversations here, and I think you do or you wouldn't be here, you need to learn to reign in your pride... which is where I think most of this comes from. Your being accustomed to social respect/authority within your circles and refusing to let go of that and accept that in a place like this... your knowledge, your words and your ideas are all that can give you that. It isn't something you can demand.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 I'm not sure what you hope to achieve here?

Just giving the dude what he's giving me.

Ya know, he's the one that started with the pissy tone in this thread, yet you're speaking as if it's my fault that we're here.

It would have never gotten there had he not been a shiit-head in the first place.

There are different ways of handling that, I know. I chose different routes, depending on my mood. But, if people or Sutek wants to be belligerent instead of partaking in friendly discourse, I can dish it out with the best of them.

I don't prefer that. But, I don't always run from it, either.

Others have said before that your passion for the setting and game are infectious and have spurred more debate/exchange on this forum than has been seen recently. And I agree.

Glad to hear it.

But the same people are the ones telling you constantly that you are overly defensive and argumentative.

I admit, with some, I've gotten off on a bad foot here. I tried the apologetic route, and I was genuinely apologetic. And, what happens? Someone like Sutek starts being a jerk in his discourse with me.

I'm a jerk back.

And, now, I'm the jerk of the forum.

Maybe it's a forum seniority thing.

Spinning your wheels until people just don't want to talk to you anymore isn't the same thing as 'winning' the argument on a logical and factual level.

Wow. That's a lot of psycho analysis.

In all honesty, I'll say you're correct in some of our perceptions and dead wrong in many others. But, that's neither here nor there. There's nothing I can say to change your opinion, and I don't really care to attempt it.

If you don't want to have Conan discussions with me, then, buddy, don't. It won't hurt my feelings at all.

People who want to have civil conversations with me are welcomed to.

And, if someone starts to be a shiit-head, as many people are apt to do on forums, then don't be surprised if you see me biting back.

Keep your discussion respectful and pleasant, and you will see me do the same.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Sutek]

HOLY JEEBUS!!!!

IT'S A FU**ING -2 PENALTY YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT HERE!!!!

:shock:

ROFLOL

Seriously, there is no friendly discourse with you, and I'm not the only one tired of it. I'm honestly trying to help you out, but you don't want it. You don't want help - you just want everyone to tell you how clever or inciteful you are.

Well, here's the bottom line Sup4: You are wrong. Dodge does not allow a move in any way. Movement is handled under, of all things, the Movement rules.

There's your answer, from me and several other people. Take it or leave it.

Great diplomacy check, Vortigern, but obviously the DC is too high on this one....(lol)

 

[Supplement Four]

Seriously, there is no friendly discourse with you, and I'm not the only one tired of it.

Brother, you're the one that took this thread down the pissy road, not I. I was civil all the way through until you started with the shitty comments.

And, I'll tell you like I spoke above: If you don't want to have discourse with me, then flat out don't. It's no skin off my nose.

If you're a jerk, don't expect nice replies in kind.

If you keep your discussion respectful and pleasant, you will see me do the same.

Those are simple rules. Your mom should have taught 'em to you.

 

[Sutek]

As you pointed out, sometimes following some rules just doesnt make much sense.

Look, stop being so defensive and contradictory. Your usual method of "ask a question, get answers, refute answers for 100+ posts in spite of concensus" is what is iritating me and others. Vortigern is being polite, but most people are just avoiding you. Just calm down, decide which way you want to run this rule, regading the advice given or not, and move on.

Oh, and watch your language. This is a family forum.

 

[Supplement Four]

Look, stop being so defensive and contradictory. Your usual method of "ask a question, get answers, refute answers for 100+ posts in spite of concensus" is what is iritating me and others.

I told ya. It's forum Rule numero uno. If you find someone iritating, then just ignore them. They'll stop talking to you.

You find me irriatating? No problem. Just ignore me. Don't keep posting. It's real simple.

Vortigern is being polite, but most people are just avoiding you.

You've accused me of stating a lot of nonesense as fact, and that's exactly what you're doing here.

People aren't "avoiding" me. I participate in dialogue just as much as any other on this forum. The forum is a bit dead. But, I certainly don't see "most people" avoiding me and speaking with everyone else.

That's not to mention the PM I got about you from someone I won't name about how often you can be a jerk.

 

[Strom]

I've been here since '04 and Sutek has never come across as a jerk that I can remember. He knows the game very well and has helped others with his knowledge - including me. He's contributed a lot to the forum. I understand his interpretation of the Dodge rule because that is how we handle it as well.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've been here since '04 and Sutek has never come across as a jerk that I can remember.

OK, let's just look at this thread, then. From the top, post #1 until this one.

Everything is fine and pleasant--nobody is arguing. People are just discussing this rule until Sutek's second post, which can be seen at the top of second page of this thread:

"4 mooks surrounding you" was an attempt to explain, once again, a very basic rule of the combat system in a way that he could also draw you a diagram, Sup4.

Sounds like a jerk speaking to me. Everything was fine until Sutek started down this road. No one else had said one pissy comment to another. As I said, Sutek took us down this road, not I.

I called him on it, and he replied with (keep reading, it's all in the thread):

I just don't understand what you're missing, so...yeah, it was a little sarcastic.

And, instead of apologizing or keeping the thread from degenerating further (the way I did in the Map thread when Vincent thought I had called him a name when I started a sentence with "Whelp"...see how I corrected that to make sure there were no hard feelings?), Sutek decides to make it worse with:

DUDE...lol. Surrounded means that there's people surrounding you! There is no "surround rule", just Multiple Combatants. Focus.

And, now we're off to the races.

The thread would not have degernated were it not for Sutek's snarky comments. There was nothing negative in this thread until he did so.

It's all there in B&W.

And, Sutek's gets a kick out of trying to get a rise out of people, in my opinion. The situation on the thread was getting hot. He knew this, and armed with that knowledge, he decided to fan the flames rather than do anything to abate them.

He laced his posts with snarky comment after snarky comment.

Jeez. I didn't even want to bring up using the Dodge Defence along with a move action or something.

Okay. I see now. You don't want to follwo a rule simply because the rule exists, you have a deep seeded need to apply some form of Sup4 logic to why the rule operates the way it does rather than merely accept it at face value. (lol)

And, it gets worse from there.

If you go back and read the thread, there was no negativity in the thread at all until Sutek started posting.

I'd say that's some decent evidence of a jerk.