What I've seen thusfar:
- Warlocks get 4 at will powers (because the ones the ones they choose to take by pact choice and automatically fall under the "Class features" heading. I forgot to look at the 'simple rules, many exceptions' part of the rules, therefor it doesn't apply...
right? :rolleyes - Two weapon fighting works when throwing weapons... (because somehow using that weapon in your off-hand makes you throw a melee weapon better?)
- Feats and powers that work while using a shield work if you have one on you. (because 'using' is an ambiguous word. I have it in my backback, I'm using it on my back, thus I get the use... right?)
Seriously, all of these have made me
and are obviously so far against the spirit of the rules, and in some cases against even the RAW of the rules. I don't see why anyone could logically say they have the right to get bonuses where they logically don't apply. I can see a reason to point out the inconsistencies when you see them, but to insist that you get the bonuses just because it makes your character stronger? I'd rather you ask me as a DM to approve a feat/power that does the exact same bonus you're asking for than try to pass this off...So what outrageous breaking of rules have you seen since 4e?
[list=1][*]Warlocks get 4 at will powers (because the ones the ones they choose to take by pact choice and automatically fall under the "Class features" heading. I forgot to look at the 'simple rules, many exceptions' part of the rules, therefor it doesn't apply...
The many exception only works when a rule ACTUALLY says it overrides...
You get Class features PLUS two at-will powers. If the designers want it otherwise, they need to say so.
A simple fix: errata the warlock class features to STATE they over-rule the "plus two at-wills"
I know warlocks only get two at-will powers (three if human) and not four (five if human) because it becomes obvious from the sample characters. Since that was their intention how hard would it have been to word it that way... :D
Since that was their intention how hard would it have been to word it that way... :D
Only a little bit harder than reading it that way.
[*]Feats and powers that work while using a shield work if you have one on you. (because 'using' is an ambiguous word. I have it in my backback, I'm using it on my back, thus I get the use... right?)
Errata has clarified this from the original vague wording and saying you're "using it" because it's on your back is just goofy.
Every RPG game can be broken by people out to break it.
Rob
That one almost works, by RAW, actually. But it's it's easy enough to say that the curses provided by the Rod of Corruption don't also activate the Rod of Reaving's power.
In fact, CS has ruled (?) both ways on it, so someone at WotC thinks it works.
That one almost works, by RAW, actually. But it's it's easy enough to say that the curses provided by the Rod of Corruption don't also activate the Rod of Reaving's power.
I have no problem having them work, once.
The Rod of Corruption is worded in such a way, where it won't spread past the first 5 square spread (ie The Original Target).
Now while this might allow for 2 Original Targets (from Warlock's Twofold Curse), it won't be spreading through an army of Minions in 1 turn.
Note it says it only needs to be in a character's possession, rather than actually worn...
Anyway, this things will always crop up here and there - sometimes because wording is genuinely unclear, sometimes because intent can't always be deciphered, and sometimes because people really want to claim the power to do stupid stuff.
So what outrageous breaking of rules have you seen since 4e?
Teleport somehow lets you stand up from being Prone without spending a Move action to do so.
Polearm Gamble means nothing can ever get adjacent to you because you interrupt its movement every time.
Multi-classing into cleric lets you use Healing Word TWICE a day.
-Lefty
While other classes get to choose their 2 at-wills, a Warlock gets Eldritch Blast then chooses his Pact which determines his other at-will.
The book says everyone gets two at-wills and the Warlock entry tells you which ones you get. I don't get the 'debate'.
The other issues mentioned (and I am sure that there are plenty of others is either wishful thinking (I choose to be an optimist and believe that people are not deliberately twisting things to work in their favor) or poor wording by wotc which will be errated at some point (see Stealth).
Teleport somehow lets you stand up from being Prone without spending a Move action to do so.
Hyperbole must be left handed.
An outrageous breaking of rules? Circumstantial occurrence in the first place, with an interpretation that has no direct refutation or forbiddance in the rules text. And hardly outrageous.
To use this interpretation requires:
1. The subject be prone.
2. The subject have the teleport power.
What kind of things would you consider to be only a "slight" breaking of the rules?
Or, for that matter, how would you classify outright cheating in the categories of rule breaking? How much worse than "outrageous" can "breaking of the rules" be classified?
Hyperbole must be left handed.
An outrageous breaking of rules?
Yeah, because the Elusive Magical Standup (tm) goes beyond mere misreading of the rules and into blatant making s*** up. I view it as sillier than the aforementioned 'Warlock 5-power Con' (c) because there's at least something in the book to build your ramshackle case on with that one.
This is a silly opinion thread, just an exercise in cathartic communal eye-rolling. As with everything else we discuss, free to house rule what constitutes outrageous in your own campaign.
-Lefty
Dual-wielding rods? Munchkin.
Wielding a light blade in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword? Munchkin.
Wielding a dagger in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and get +1 to hit? Munchkin.
Wielding a shuriken in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and deal 1d10 damage? Munchkin.
Teleport somehow lets you stand up from being Prone without spending a Move action to do so.
Polearm Gamble means nothing can ever get adjacent to you because you interrupt its movement every time.
Multi-classing into cleric lets you use Healing Word TWICE a day.
-Lefty
No where does RAW say "teleporting creatures automatically stand up from prone". You teleport in the same fashion you were in. IE: if you teleport prone, you are in the new location prone. Teleport also does not cure disease, extract poison or fix the condition "deaf", in case anyone else was wondering...
Multi-classing into cleric lets you use Healing Word TWICE a day.
-Lefty
This was the worst rule-twist I'd seen on the boards. And then I saw the "Warlock gets 5 At-Will Really no Really Come on Guys Yeah-huh *Pout*" nonsense.
Stop breaking my mind with your arguments from bad faith, munchkins!
Paladins with STR less than 15 can wean and use Plate Armor without penalty because Class Abilities function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Well, that is what they say anyways. For some reason I always seem to read it wrong: I read it "Class Proficiencies count as Feats with all their tweaks, including Feat Prerequisites. Feat Prerequisites prevent use of a feat if you don't fulfill the Prerequisites." Good thing we have people who can read properly so the weak characters can also wear the heavy armors and avoid the hurts. Since there are people in Customer Support who read the rules like that too, it has to be the right way to read the rules, don't it? ;)
Fighters with STR less than 13 can wear and use Hide, Chain and Scale Armor without penalty because Class Proficiencies function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Paladins with STR less than 15 can wean and use Plate Armor without penalty because Class Abilities function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Well, that is what they say anyways. For some reason I always seem to read it wrong: I read it "Class Proficiencies count as Feats with all their tweaks, including Feat Prerequisites. Feat Prerequisites prevent use of a feat if you don't fulfill the Prerequisites." Good thing we have people who can read properly so the weak characters can also wear the heavy armors and avoid the hurts. Since there are people in Customer Support who read the rules like that too, it has to be the right way to read the rules, don't it? ;)
That's the very first item in the PHB faq. It's pretty clear that that's the way it's intended to work (basically, there's no rule saying a Wizard can't wear plate, but it would be such a bad idea that he wouldn't be much of a Wizard if he qualified for all the feats- while even a CHA-focused Paladin can still wear plate.)
Fighters with STR less than 13 can wear and use Hide, Chain and Scale Armor without penalty because Class Proficiencies function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Paladins with STR less than 15 can wean and use Plate Armor without penalty because Class Abilities function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Well, that is what they say anyways. For some reason I always seem to read it wrong: I read it "Class Proficiencies count as Feats with all their tweaks, including Feat Prerequisites. Feat Prerequisites prevent use of a feat if you don't fulfill the Prerequisites." Good thing we have people who can read properly so the weak characters can also wear the heavy armors and avoid the hurts. Since there are people in Customer Support who read the rules like that too, it has to be the right way to read the rules, don't it? ;)
They can. The class armor proficiencies have nothing to do with the armor proficiency feats, and thus, there are no prereqs for them. Of course, you'd have to be insanse to make a fighter with less than 13 Str anyways, but even if you did, you still get the armor proficiences listed in the class.
As for any "rule twist" I've ever supported it was only because I felt it was better for the players that way. I've stood my ground in situations that I was correct, and conceded on issues I was wrong.
Every person that misinterprets a rule is not a rule bending munchkin. Some are.
For everyone's perspective on me, you should know I'm a DM and not a player, any time I've argued for or against something I've had that in mind. I am for the player, that is the point of my game. I personally, for example, think that it is stupid that the Multiclass Cleric gives one use of a power, it's lame, and it nurfs the player. BUT, I got an answer from CS that that is how it works, once, so that is how I'll run it. But if I have a player that is truly upset by that, then I may house rule it my way.
If you want to tell a munchkin apart from someone else, just pay attention.
They will ask a question: "I want to attack 5 enemies a turn with my sword by swinging it sideways."
Then you respond: "You can't do that because rule 67 page 23."
NOW, right here, if the reaction is to ignore everything you said and still argue for their point, they are most likely rule benders.
If instead, they counter your arguments with other rule, they may honestly just be seeking clarification. Don't be so quick to judge.
Pretty much any claim that uses the term "wield".
Dual-wielding rods? Munchkin.
Wielding a light blade in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword? Munchkin.
Wielding a dagger in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and get +1 to hit? Munchkin.
Wielding a shuriken in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and deal 1d10 damage? Munchkin.
I thought that some FAQ has established that wield means "attacking with" not just "holding on to".
I thought that some FAQ has established that wield means "attacking with" not just "holding on to".
That is correct
13. Rogue weapon talent requires you to “wield” a particular weapon. What does this mean?
Wielding means you must be using that weapon in the attack. Merely holding it while you attack with another weapon isn’t enough to qualify for any bonuses that result.
Also related:
3. If you wield a light shield, you can also hold an item as well, although you can’t attack with it. What if that item is an implement? Can you apply its implement bonus to your powers?
No. Using an implement to gain its bonuses is considered attacking with that implement. If you wield a light shield and hold an implement in the same hand, you would not get the implement enhancement bonus to your powers, but you would still benefit from any property that the implement has.
9) Danger Sense and Foresight allow you to roll 3 or 4 times for initiative.
10) Light (the Wizard cantrip) can be cast on an enemy, or an object an enemy is wearing/carrying/holding.
11) Temporary Hit Points can stack if I just ...
12) I can ready an action so when an enemy moves adjacent to me, I can push them back one square and they then can't attack me.
Deth Braedon
Our Elf player was trying to ignore difficult terrain during all of his movement instead of just while shifting.
Oh yeah? I've been told that since Swimming is half your speed, like difficult terrain, that the Elf bonus should apply to swimming too, so Elves move as fast in water as on land...
Oh yeah? I've been told that since Swimming is half your speed, like difficult terrain, that the Elf bonus should apply to swimming too, so Elves move as fast in water as on land...
Grr... difficult terrain isn't half your speed, you MUNCHKIN! J/k :P
This thread is an Epic Fail. The OP wanted a list of things that were rule twisting, but for every "rule twist" there are 3 people in here to argue for it.
I guess that just explains how ridiculous it's actually been. The fact that people are actually arguing for inane twists of rules makes my heart sink. I have a new found appreciation for me group by contrasting the things I'm seeing on this forum.
NOW, right here, if the reaction is to ignore everything you said and still argue for their point, they are most likely rule benders.
If instead, they counter your arguments with other rule, they may honestly just be seeking clarification. Don't be so quick to judge.
Who are you speaking to? The general public?
Those seeking clarification actually say "Is this how this works?" or something along the gist of that, rather than saying "This allows me to do this, and if you tell me otherwise I'm going to vehemently berate you until you get sick of arguing with me and let me have my way."
If you actually directed that post at me, you have judged me too quickly as someone who judges too quickly. In fact, you can even read my entire post post, and realize that not everyone who misinterprets a rule is a munchkin. Even look at my signature. Of course, this is moot to be saying if you, in fact, did not direct such a "general statement" at me, and it was actually an addendum to the original post.
12) I can ready an action so when an enemy moves adjacent to me, I can push them back one square and they then can't attack me.
Deth Braedon
This one doesn't seem bad to me. You're wasting your action by readying for something that might not happen. You also need to hit to get the push.
Merely playing smart is not necessarily munchkining.
Edit to add:
14) Trying to claim that weapon type bonuses (class, proficiency, feats, etc.) apply when using the weapon as an implement.
Most of the nonsense I see on these boards would not even get an arguement at our table, a look from the DM would be enough to get the game back on track.
I guess that just explains how ridiculous it's actually been. The fact that people are actually arguing for inane twists of rules makes my heart sink. I have a new found appreciation for me group by contrasting the things I'm seeing on this forum.
Makes sense that one person's version of rule-twisting is another's legitimate play.
Another example: what happens if a paladin marks a foe with divine challenge, then turns invisible with a power like eyebite? By the RAW, the monster is forced to do nothing (since he cannot even target the paladin) or take damage. Yet there are people who feel that this constitutes an abuse of the way divine challenge was meant to work, and contrary to the manner a paladin is supposed to play, and specifically disallows this.
You have to take eldritch blast, and then the pact determines the other one.
(OK, the player trying to do this wasn't really trying to munchkin, she was just ignorant - but it took a session and a half before it sank in...)
It was by far the biggest load of stupid I've seen yet.
They can. The class armor proficiencies have nothing to do with the armor proficiency feats, and thus, there are no prereqs for them. Of course, you'd have to be insanse to make a fighter with less than 13 Str anyways, but even if you did, you still get the armor proficiences listed in the class.
I'm not going to talk about this in this thread or this will turn into 'one of those threads'. This thread is about the munchkinisms and falsely read rules. This rule is one and/or the other. If you want to debate about it more, there are several threads about the matter in these forums there you can knock yourself out. Unfortunately I don't know how to link you to these threads, so you will have to find them on your own. Also the threads have been fought to a standstill; both sides are tired because one of sides is not listening to logic and reason. If you wish to find out which side, you have to find and judge the threads yourselves.
I'm not going to talk about this in this thread or this will turn into 'one of those threads'. This thread is about the munchkinisms and falsely read rules. This rule is one and/or the other. If you want to debate about it more, there are several threads about the matter in these forums there you can knock yourself out. Unfortunately I don't know how to link you to these threads, so you will have to find them on your own. Also the threads have been fought to a standstill; both sides are tired because one of sides is not listening to logic and reason. If you wish to find out which side, you have to find and judge the threads yourselves.
You mean the people ignoring the clearly written FAQ answer written by the designers themselves stating clear as day the class feats do not require the usual armour pre-requisites to be worn without penalty?
Pretty much any claim that uses the term "wield".
Dual-wielding rods? Munchkin.
Wielding a light blade in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword? Munchkin.
Wielding a dagger in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and get +1 to hit? Munchkin.
Wielding a shuriken in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and deal 1d10 damage? Munchkin.
ohhh, I hate those, we HAD a player try to abuse "loopholes" (the shield too, hey he must frequent these boards!) He was laughed out of the group.
You mean the people ignoring the clearly written FAQ answer written by the designers themselves stating clear as day the class feats do not require the usual armour pre-requisites to be worn without penalty?
I mean those who ignore the fact that even though CS said that characters get their class proficiencies no matter what their strength, they still didn't say that the character can actually use the armors without fulfilling prerequisites. Also, I have no respect for answers of CS. They have given too many contradictory answers to questions. I prefer using my own brain and not just taking what is served before me.
There is no logical reason why a fighter with STR 6 could maneuver easily in Scale mail for example, but you are free to abuse the loophole if you wish - You play your game, I play mine. I won't comment more about this in this thread. There are other threads for that purpose.
'I can use powers on allies that clearly say Target: enemy any time I want because I can choose at any given time who my allies are and who my enemies are.'
Or reverse if situation warrants. Effectively changing allegiance every round as needed to make any power fit the given situation as proposed here.
I mean those who ignore the fact that even though CS said that characters get their class proficiencies no matter what their strength, they still didn't say that the character can actually use the armors without fulfilling prerequisites.
They can, as this is the direct RAI as class armour prerequisites do not have the same strength and constitution requirements. Also, the official FAQ is a step above in credibility over the CSR responses as far as I'm concerned. I do agree that the CSR have been less than helpful on some issues, like stealth as an example.
but you are free to abuse the loophole if you wish - You play your game, I play mine.
Yes, you can rule whatever house-rules you like
Or reverse if situation warrants. Effectively changing allegiance every round as needed to make any power fit the given situation as proposed here.
That thread is so epic.
Who are you speaking to? The general public?
Not you, a good handful of people on the forums though unfourtunaly. Too often someone asks "Can I..." and the response is: "Muncking rule bending blank! Get out of here, go away! I hope you die!"
Maybe not that bad, but pretty close. And usually after reading one post and skipping the other 14...
Again, No, not you.
17. "Initiate of the Faith" or "Student of Battle" allows you to use, respectively, the cleric’s Healing Word power or the warlord’s Inspiring Word power more than once per day.
I would also say that the answer to many of the 'Can I ...' type statements are intuitively obvious.
Of course, like common sense, sound intuition is not as common as it should be.
Look, we all have an inner munchkin trying to get out; once we all recognize that, answering such inquiries becomes much easier (because we simply say, "We're munchkins, with the history of a ba-zillion munchkin characters on our hands. But we can stop it! We can admit we're munchkins, but we're not going to be a munchkin today. That's all it takes. Knowing that you're not going to be a munchkin... today".
Deth Braedon
The count might be off but ths one needs to get added (and added again, if it is a repeat):
17. "Initiate of the Faith" or "Student of Battle" allows you to use, respectively, the cleric’s Healing Word power or the warlord’s Inspiring Word power more than once per day.
Deth Braedon
I, for one, am glad the Sage took it upon himself to answer this one, the wording was so vague it could have been interpreted, correctly, 4 or 5 different ways. Though I usually take CS's rulings as final until another, greater source clarifies, CS is not a well respected or accepted end all to rules clarifications.
3. If you wield a light shield, you can also hold an item as well, although you can’t attack with it. What if that item is an implement? Can you apply its implement bonus to your powers?
No. Using an implement to gain its bonuses is considered attacking with that implement. If you wield a light shield and hold an implement in the same hand, you would not get the implement enhancement bonus to your powers, but you would still benefit from any property that the implement has.
Woah. Does this mean that to use your implement for a power with the implement keyword you must first sheath your weapon and draw your implement?
I thought an implement just needed to be worn or posessed. I might be thinking of holy symbols, though.
Woah. Does this mean that to use your implement for a power with the implement keyword you must first sheath your weapon and draw your implement?
I thought an implement just needed to be worn or posessed. I might be thinking of holy symbols, though.
Holy symbols are a type of implement.
Holy symbols just needs to be worn.
Other implements need to be wielded.
This one doesn't seem bad to me. You're wasting your action by readying for something that might not happen. You also need to hit to get the push.
Merely playing smart is not necessarily munchkining.
I agree that in Deth_Braedon's example the "If I interrupt your movement with an immediate reaction, your action is over" school of thought is not gamebreaking. However, in some situations it is. This argument first came up with the release of Keep on the Shadowfell, when the forums were trying to decide whether or not Kobold Dragonshields are invincible to melee combatants who aren't wielding reach weapons.
Out of curiosity, has any Wizards of the Coast source besides Customer Service actually directly addressed the whole question of how immediate reactions that push enemies around interact with move actions and charges?
Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in
response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction, except that you can interrupt
a creature’s movement. If a creature triggers your
immediate reaction while moving (by coming into
range, for example), you take your action before the
creature finishes moving but after it has moved at
least 1 square.
12) I can ready an action so when an enemy moves adjacent to me, I can push them back one square and they then can't attack me.
That's NOT munchkinism! That's a very valid use of 'Tide of Iron'. The enemy moves AND THEN attacks. In between, the fighter pushes him so the enemy is no longer adjacent and thus cannot attack (unless he has reach, a readily available thrown or ranged weapon, etc.) Now, if the enemy is charging, Tide of Iron won't serve this purpose. This can also be used with Diabolic Grasp, although sliding the enemy more than 1 square gives him the chance to charge... It's a combo that my warlock and the fighter in my party use very frequently.
Edit update:
I read page 268 after making my original post, and still think the trick works, since you only have to word your ready action as something like 'When the enemy ENDS HIS MOVE ADJACENT TO ME, I use Tide of Iron'. Since he has completed his move (even if he had squares to spare -TV flashback: 'Not a square to spare'), he would have to choose between taking ANOTHER move action to get adjacent OR attacking you unsing a thrown/ranged weapon.
Pretty much any claim that uses the term "wield".
Dual-wielding rods? Munchkin.
Wielding a light blade in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword? Munchkin.
Wielding a dagger in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and get +1 to hit? Munchkin.
Wielding a shuriken in your off hand so you can use Rogue powers with your longsword and deal 1d10 damage? Munchkin.
The dual rods and off hand shuriken ones really bothered me.
It's like saying you can hold a flaming weapon in your off hand and still get fire damage with your main-hand weapon.
'When the enemy ENDS HIS MOVE ADJACENT TO ME, I use Tide of Iron'.
Aside:
This may not work if your GM doesn't accept "end their movement" as a valid condition. For example, it is not reasonable to have a condition "when the kitchen timer goes off" or "when Gary passes me the chips" -- the condition has to be a trigger within the game.
Now, moving next to you is a trigger in the game, however "ending movement" may be considered an out-of-game thing (except when they run out of squares).
I suppose it depends on the GM, but I think tide of iron is a valid tactic, even if only useable in limited circumstances (enemy has run out of movement).
Doesn't seem broken to me...
Why not to just follow up Tide of Iron with a charge? Enemy takes move action, fighter rebuffs, enemy uses standard action to charge, fighter can't do it again.
Doesn't seem broken to me...
From Charge (PHB, p287):
Movement Requirements:
You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must move directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy.
You can’t charge if the nearest square is occupied.
Moving over difficult terrain costs extra squares of movement as normal.
If a creature moves adjacent then is pushed back one square, the creature can't charge.
On the other hand, if the creature moves adjacent (with movement left) then is pushed back, the creature can finish its movement (and once again be adjacent) then attack.
Deth Braedon
I read page 268 after making my original post, and still think the trick works, since you only have to word your ready action as something like 'When the enemy ENDS HIS MOVE ADJACENT TO ME, I use Tide of Iron'.
This is the equivalent of making your trigger action "When an enemy moves adjacent to me and then doesn't move to a different square." "Doesn't move" isn't a valid trigger action, as countless people keep pointing out. You can trigger when an enemy moves adjacent (in which case it may continue its move after Tide of Iron), or you may trigger when an enemy adjacent attacks. There is no triggering "when the enemy doesn't do something."
What you and other people are trying to do is have Tide of Iron go off before an enemy attacks you. That is neither the intent nor the wording of the readying rules. Your triggered action happens after; this attempt to make it happen before is bogus semantics.
A readied action triggered by movement happens before the creature finishes moving. It may continue to move.
Also, I take issue with some of DB's responses (shown in red below):
My count total might be off a bit ...
9) Danger Sense and Foresight allow you to roll 3 or 4 times for initiative.
If you are coming from Star Wars Saga (which a lot of people got into before 4E), this makes sense as rerolls stack in that game. Since Saga was hailed as a precurser to 4E, it is no surprise that many people thought the rules conventions would carry over.
10) Light (the Wizard cantrip) can be cast on an enemy, or an object an enemy is wearing/carrying/holding.
Um...why couldn't you do this? It's an excellant way to keep stealth characters from hiding from you.
11) Temporary Hit Points can stack if I just ...
Yeah, stacking temporary HP is definitely munchkin post FAQ clarifications. If you are unaware of the FAQ's existence, however, I can see it being a simple misunderstanding (since different sources of temp hp DID stack in previous editions of D&D).
12) I can ready an action so when an enemy moves adjacent to me, I can push them back one square and they then can't attack me.
That works if worded correctly and isn't at all broken. Alternatively, you could simply shift out of melee range.
Deth Braedon
I know there was a #17 already, but it was a redundant entry.
"munchkinisms should not be multiplied unnecessarily''
If there are multiple ways to interpret a rule, the interpretation which is less munchkinny is more desireable.
And thus a thread about "Rediculous 4e Munchkinisms" was created.
The posts I like most about this thread are the 'that is not munchkinny' responses (IMO & IME, those are generally just other examples of the "inner munchkin trying to get out").
Deth Braedon
P.S. When I read "DB" I don't think of myself, I think of "D.B. Cooper".
Fighters with STR less than 13 can wear and use Hide, Chain and Scale Armor without penalty because Class Proficiencies function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Paladins with STR less than 15 can wean and use Plate Armor without penalty because Class Abilities function as Feat Benefits, not Feats.
Well, that is what they say anyways. For some reason I always seem to read it wrong: I read it "Class Proficiencies count as Feats with all their tweaks, including Feat Prerequisites. Feat Prerequisites prevent use of a feat if you don't fulfill the Prerequisites." Good thing we have people who can read properly so the weak characters can also wear the heavy armors and avoid the hurts. Since there are people in Customer Support who read the rules like that too, it has to be the right way to read the rules, don't it? ;)
http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396
The pertinent quote is:
1. Can a Fighter with a 12 Constitution still use scale armor?
The Armor Proficiency (Scale) feat requires a 13 Constitution, but all fighters gain proficiency with scale armor for free (regardless of the prerequisites).
I mean those who ignore the fact that even though CS said that characters get their class proficiencies no matter what their strength, they still didn't say that the character can actually use the armors without fulfilling prerequisites.
Everyone can use scale armor - even the nonproficient - it's just that if you're proficient, you don't get penalized for wearing it.
Not you, a good handful of people on the forums though unfourtunaly. Too often someone asks "Can I..." and the response is: "Muncking rule bending blank! Get out of here, go away! I hope you die!"
Probably you should try to stop reading the rules from a "The rules don't say I can't" point of view, and try to come to the rules with a "what do the rules say I can do/would what I want to do bork the game" mindset.