|
The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)
Technically, it would be considered a fallacy, although I'm having trouble finding the exact definition.
Ah, found it! Burden of Proof
Technically, it would be considered a fallacy, although I'm having trouble finding the exact definition.
The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)
Well, technically it's rank hypocrisy, but that's rude to point out so I said "irony" instead.
[Jar-Jar]How rude![/Jar-Jar]
MA
|
|
Well, technically it's rank hypocrisy, but that's rude to point out so I said "irony" instead.Technically, it would be considered a fallacy, although I'm having trouble finding the exact definition.
The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)
I don't know. As I understand it, hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing something else. He's not really doing that.
He is saying: "This is my position, you need to prove me wrong".
Well, technically it's rank hypocrisy, but that's rude to point out so I said "irony" instead.Technically, it would be considered a fallacy, although I'm having trouble finding the exact definition.
The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)
I don't know. As I understand it, hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing something else. He's not really doing that.
He is saying: "This is my position, you need to prove me wrong".
Yes, but he's also saying that he has provided rules that you won't accept, when he has steadfastly refused to accept the actual rule written for ranged touch spell attacks itself.
|
|
So by the by I was wondering something. Just what is your argument that multiple thing happening simultaneously can not generate more than one attack of opportunity.
The best I can come up with is because it is not realistic for someone to drop their guard 3 times at the same time. But given that you already argued against using realism as a justification you clearly can not be making an argument based on what is or is not realistic.
Thus I am stuck drawing a blank as to the basis of your argument and must ask for clarification.
Because the things which are provoking attacks of opportunity are not happening simultaneously. A character is doing a string of things that provoke AoO sequentially.
Examples:
* Iterative ranged attacks {EDIT: previously, I wasn't exactly convinced that each would provoke an AoO, but after skimming through those 3.5 FAQ links above, it appears as if that was the intent, so I stand corrected.}
* Making a ranged attack then moving
* Casting a spell then moving
* Picking up a dropped item then moving
* AoO chains in which each side is going back and forth with AoO
I'm sure we could come up with dozens of more examples.
Casting a Scorching Ray spell and the resulting rays do not provoke multiple AoO, it will provoke one AoO and when the caster does something else, might provoke another.
|
|
Yes, but he's also saying that he has provided rules that you won't accept, when he has steadfastly refused to accept the actual rule written for ranged touch spell attacks itself.Well, technically it's rank hypocrisy, but that's rude to point out so I said "irony" instead.Technically, it would be considered a fallacy, although I'm having trouble finding the exact definition.
The very definition of irony. Stunning in its power and simplicity.(Update, yes, I know that the actual original definition of "irony" isn't what this is, but this is what most people call "irony" these days, so I just run with it.)
I don't know. As I understand it, hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing something else. He's not really doing that.
He is saying: "This is my position, you need to prove me wrong".
Eh, true. Shall we split it down the middle and call it both?
EDIT: He committed a fallacious irony!
|
I'm saying that you need to both prove your stance AND also to start disproving mine (or others for that matter). AD, Mebven, and James have consistantly failed to do so this entire "arguement", instead insisting their view has some authority (even after it has been disproven over and over) as if either they have some sort of popularity vote in their favor (?) or making dramatic claims gives some sort of authority.
I have no issue being proven wrong. But so far, nothing even close has come from that as it's all based on how they view the game working according to their point of view of reality using partial mechanics. Not the rules themselves, and making claims that they know what other people where intending.
I'm saying that you need to both prove your stance AND also to start disproving mine (or others for that matter). AD, Mebven, and James have consistantly failed to do so this entire "arguement", instead insisting their view has some authority (even after it has been disproven over and over) as if either they have some sort of popularity vote in their favor (?) or making dramatic claims gives some sort of authority.
I have no issue being proven wrong. But so far, nothing even close has come from that as it's all based on how they view the game working according to their point of view of reality using partial mechanics. Not the rules themselves, and making claims that they know what other people where intending.
You can not be proven wrong if you will not accept any proof. Every rule you stretch the meaning of so that you can have your interpretation of the all-powerful Combat Reflexes feat, and anything which directly contradicts you, you either ignore, or declare "not official", "misinformed" or somehow not written by the people who published it.
|
|
Look I understand that scorching ray is one of the few cases of explicit simultaneous action in the rules. However I do not understand what your justification for that mattering actually is.I mean from that last post I get only a restatement of your position and no insight as to why your position is the way it is. Really I can see you are saying that things that are simultaneous count as only one provocation. That part is clear but why you are taking that stance is where the lack of clarity lies.
Why do I interpret the rules in the way that I have interpreted them? Like, you want to know why I feel the way I do philosophically, not using rules citation to support my opinion?
|
|
As far as reasons behind the logical steps: because when I read the rules, that/those/these are the conclusions I come to. The conclusions I have found are supported by the rules. (Errr, don't know if this can be really answered any other way). Anyways.
As far as specific rules citations that support my conclusion:
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
My explanation: The casting of a spell that requires a ranged touch attack is one standard action (usually; maybe there is a spell out there that takes a longer period of time to cast). It is not two different actions. It is not two portions of an action. The rules explicitly state that the casting of the spell and the ranged touch attack is one and the same. It is a singular action. Because it is only one action, only one Attack of Opportunity is provoked.
As far as the whole stupid multi scorched ray thing, it is a completely pointless argument. Regardless how many ranged touch attacks are being made, they are all being made as part of the casting the spell, thus only one action.
Then people are getting confused about the language in reference to Combat Reflexes:
This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity).
They are confusing the language and wording in this paragraph and attaching it to the paragraph I quoted above. They are assuming that this implies that the defender provides different opportunities and further implying that there could be multiple opportunities for each action. This is not the case.
What is not being understood is that the attacker takes the opportunity to attack. The defender provokes the opportunity by making a specified action. The defender cannot provoke more than once with one action. For the attacker to make a second attack of opportunity on the same defender, that defender must do another action that provokes a different opportunity.
{EDIT: To expand further. The defender will perform an action that offers one opportunity. The attacker may only make one attack per opportunity. The language for "action" is tied to the defender, the language for "opportunity" is tied to the attacker. People are trying to tie the language for "opportunity" to the defender, which is incorrect.}
In the case of a ranged touch attack, the defender is only provoking one opportunity, because he casts the spell and makes the raged touch attack as part of the same action.
Is this what you were looking for?
In the case of a ranged touch attack, the defender is only provoking one opportunity, because he casts the spell and makes the raged touch attack as part of the same action.
And you discount the fact that at certain caster levels Scorching Ray involves multiple ranged attack rolls to represnt the rays (that is to say multiple Ranged Touch attempts are involved)? And that these multiple attempts would not somehow provoke more AoOs?
I cannot fathom why...
Let's assume that the rays fired sequentially and not simultaneously.. we'll leave that where it is for now. Would you say that this hypothetical, sequential scorching ray's ranged touches would each individually provoke although they stem from the same spell?
I'm just asking if each of the rays provokes in its own right, then I'll move to phase 2 of my nefarious plan.
Stop running in circles and restating things for the 50th time, please, FAQ the thread and bump it until we see an offical ruling someday.
It provokes only once. It's not Condition A + Condition B = 2 Effects. It's IF Condition A OR Condition B is met then Effect C can occur. Real world example going for a house loan. Multiple conditions (provocations) for denial (AOO). If you credit score is in the basement or you do have not collateral or a steady job you are denied. 3 different causes only 1 effect. At no point do they go "well we have 3 denials, 1 for now and 2 more coming which we also get to use against you". It's a checklist if any of these conditions/factors are met then this happens.
+10,000
Very elegant.
Stop running in circles and restating things for the 50th time, please, FAQ the thread and bump it until we see an offical ruling someday.
The developers have a long precedence of refusing to settle these sorts of "debates" when they feel the rule is abundantly clear and needs no clarification.
That's exactly why I believe they have not ruled on this, and I don't expect them to. Although, as I said, I am quite convinced they are using this for its entertainment value.
Stop running in circles and restating things for the 50th time, please, FAQ the thread and bump it until we see an offical ruling someday.
Haven't you noticed that the devs have not participated in these forums for over a month now? Some people who were angry about monks said some personally insulting things about SKR, he said something like - I guess I won't waste my time on these message boards any more, and just work on new products - and since then not a word from any developers at all.
It's a shame, because just prior to that, they had started to put up an FAQ thread every tuesday, and were addressing all the most popular rules threads in those FAQ postings, and really answering the unanswered questions. Now we must use common-sense on issues like this, because they are keeping their silence.
I guess we must learn the lesson: never bite the hand that feeds you.
Mabven, I missed that thread. What a shame if true. SKR has been a great resource for the community. If true, I hope this is a temporary situation because I believe the developers offer a great service by participating in these boards.
(Also... this is why I frequently say things like "game design is hard!" when discussing something where people are incensed that the game doesn't do what they want. I've designed games, both computer games and tabletop games. It's incredibly difficult to do just as an intellectual exercise. When you have to try to factor in the ways people will exploit every loophole and crack in the rules to gain ridiculous advantages, it can get extremely stressful and ends up with some bizarre rules as a result. I have nothing but respect and admiration for professional game designers. It's not an easy job.)
Here it is, AD.
Thanks TOZ, but I don't think I wanna read it. I'm trying hard to be a kinder gentler dragon these days... I don't need to get worked up.
(Yes, I know I've been snarky on this thread... A short relapse I hope...)
|
|
The developers have a long precedence of refusing to settle these sorts of "debates" when they feel the rule is abundantly clear and needs no clarification.That's exactly why I believe they have not ruled on this, and I don't expect them to. Although, as I said, I am quite convinced they are using this for its entertainment value.
I agree that the developers have a long-standing precedence for not settling these debates. However I have a more cynical reason for their lack of input.
And that attitude is probably directly linked to why they are not responding.
|
|
And you discount the fact that at certain caster levels Scorching Ray involves multiple ranged attack rolls to represnt the rays (that is to say multiple Ranged Touch attempts are involved)? And that these multiple attempts would not somehow provoke more AoOs?
No. They don't. They are all cast as one singular action, thus only offer one opportunity for the attacker. Just because multiple dice are rolled, that does not mean they are separate actions. The rules are explicit in saying that the separate die rolls are made simultaneously.
I have quoted rules to support my position on this and/or show why your position is invalid. You need to quote rules that support your position or rules that disprove my position.
Let's assume that the rays fired sequentially and not simultaneously.. we'll leave that where it is for now. Would you say that this hypothetical, sequential scorching ray's ranged touches would each individually provoke although they stem from the same spell?I'm just asking if each of the rays provokes in its own right, then I'll move to phase 2 of my nefarious plan.
I'm not going to argue a position that supposes a hypothesis based on rules that don't exist.
I removed a bunch of posts and their replies. Really, folks, is it that hard to have a respectful discussion with each other?
Also, I'm locking this thread. After 500+ posts in a rules question, either the discussion is going in circles, or an answer WAS reached and is just getting buried under more posts.