|
we don't know what the DC is and we don't know the modifiers involved, for any particular situationIts a 5 foot wide gap ... so 5.That's actually DC 10, since you have to *clear* the 5ft gap.
Jumping 5ft would mean you land in the square adjacent to you... Which is where the pit is =\
More than one way to read that: squares or distance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread just makes me thank my lucky stars that my local PFS players all seem to know the Take 10 rules very well. Haven't yet run into any GMs (besides the absolute beginners) who try to prevent a Take 10 to jump across a pit outside of combat or anything.
|
|
Reading this thread just makes me thank my lucky stars that my local PFS players all seem to know the Take 10 rules very well. Haven't yet run into any GMs (besides the absolute beginners) who try to prevent a Take 10 to jump across a pit outside of combat or anything.
Which is saying that people with that conclusion don't know the rules. Which isn't an accurate assessment.
|
The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.
You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.
Again, please support this with an explicit statement from the rules.
|
|
Again, please support this with an explicit statement from the rules.You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.
Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order.
(implies seeeing all directions) In addition to just perception (LINK) on its own--look at the entire DC mod--out of all the modifiers on that HUGE table none of them make the slightest mention of facing or relative positioning.
Again, please support this with an explicit statement from the rules.You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.
Not required. You may XYZ as a standard action. That means every standard action you get all day long is eligible to complete XYZ. Unless XYZ had a specific mechanic to limit the times per day it can be accomplished then XYZ can be done with every one of the 9,600 standard actions you get in a waking day.
|
|
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Not required.Again, please support this with an explicit statement from the rules.You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.
So you make a claim that the rules say "X" and when someone asks for explicit proof that the rules do indeed say "X" your response is that proof is not required? Guess again. Quit reiterating that the rules say "X" as if repeating it makes it true and show me in the rules where you are correct, or, quite frankly, quit pretending you have a valid argument.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?
|
|
Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
I quoted the PRD about actions.
Can you site anything limiting actions or otherwise proving us wrong? We have provided the rules that say it's legal. It's now your turn to provide the exception and prove us wrong. Perhaps it is this Fatigue Rules you speak of, I've never seen such a section.|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Again, please support this with an explicit statement from the rules.You mean except for gaze attacks? And just perception, itself, in general?The fact that people can be on high alert all the time and looking all directions is part of the "fantasy element" of pathfinderThere is nothing in the rules that supports this conclusion as their is nothing in the rules that states that just because you can take a given action you can take that given action an indefinite number of times.Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order.(implies seeeing all directions) In addition to just perception (LINK) on its own--look at the entire DC mod--out of all the modifiers on that HUGE table none of them make the slightest mention of facing or relative positioning.
This mentions nothing about being able to do an action infinitely with restriction, say like being effected by fatigue.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
I quoted the PRD about actions.
Can you site anything limiting actions or otherwise proving us wrong? We have provided the rules that say it's legal. It's now your turn to provide the exception and prove us wrong. Perhaps it is this Fatigue Rules you speak of, I've never seen such a section.
Sorry, didn't realize that was a quote. Unfortunately, 'continuous' turns is not the same thing as 'infinite' turns or 'unrestricted' turns so again, no proof. I cannot provide proof that the rules say you can't because my argument is that the rules are undefined on this point and thus default to realistic limitations.
According to your argument, because the rules neither restrict making Perceptions checks nor restrict making the Move actions required to actively make Perception checks then you can continuously Take 20 on perception checks.
Forced March: In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating.
A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It's possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard.
Since moving is a move action, here is a clear example of the rules limiting actions. This is a clear precedent that even unlimited use powers, abilities and skills, can, in fact, be limited. The fact that does not expressly call out Perception does not mean it does not apply.
I have a sub-topic. I know this is PFS, but assuming this is not PFS, and devs say "immediate danger" is only for thing that can harm you even if you do nothing, which would mean lava in a pit would not count, but lava spewing from a volcano and and possibly landing on your character would----> Would you(no specific person) go with that ruling in a home game or just house rule it?
|
|
Sorry, didn't realize that was a quote. Unfortunately, 'continuous' turns is not the same thing as 'infinite' turns or 'unrestricted' turns so again, no proof. I cannot provide proof that the rules say you can't because my argument is that the rules are undefined on this point and thus default to realistic limitations.Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
I quoted the PRD about actions.
Can you site anything limiting actions or otherwise proving us wrong? We have provided the rules that say it's legal. It's now your turn to provide the exception and prove us wrong. Perhaps it is this Fatigue Rules you speak of, I've never seen such a section.
The rules say what type of activities and actions cause fatigue. Doing a million perception checks isn't listed under any of those, nor defined as it's own cause of fatigue. Thus it doesn't cause fatigue per the rules. Where are you getting this view that if the rules are undefined the default is realistic limitations? Almost nothing in this game works realistically.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
The rules say what type of activities and actions cause fatigue. Doing a million perception checks isn't listed under any of those, nor defined as it's own cause of fatigue. Thus it doesn't cause fatigue per the rules. Where are you getting this view that if the rules are undefined the default is realistic limitations? Almost nothing in this game works realistically.Sorry, didn't realize that was a quote. Unfortunately, 'continuous' turns is not the same thing as 'infinite' turns or 'unrestricted' turns so again, no proof. I cannot provide proof that the rules say you can't because my argument is that the rules are undefined on this point and thus default to realistic limitations.Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
I quoted the PRD about actions.
Can you site anything limiting actions or otherwise proving us wrong? We have provided the rules that say it's legal. It's now your turn to provide the exception and prove us wrong. Perhaps it is this Fatigue Rules you speak of, I've never seen such a section.
The rules call out specific activities and actions that cause fatigue. They do not call out if this list of activities is (pardon the pun) exhaustive or that it applies only to those activities. On the matter of Perception, the rules simply don't say. They say neither, yes, the Fatigue rules apply to Perception nor, no, the Fatigue rules do not apply to Perception.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is your Health Insurance paid up?Do I have to carry the players of my dead companions as well?For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.One of our VOs actually requires the player to cackle for as long as their character is cackling.
I signed up for the Affordable Cleric Act.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I signed up for the Affordable Cleric Act.Is your Health Insurance paid up?Do I have to carry the players of my dead companions as well?For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.One of our VOs actually requires the player to cackle for as long as their character is cackling.
So, Abadarcare, then?
|
|
So, Abadarcare, then?I signed up for the Affordable Cleric Act.Is your Health Insurance paid up?Do I have to carry the players of my dead companions as well?For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.One of our VOs actually requires the player to cackle for as long as their character is cackling.
Nah, that's an Abadamination.
|
|
So, Abadarcare, then?I signed up for the Affordable Cleric Act.Is your Health Insurance paid up?Do I have to carry the players of my dead companions as well?For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.One of our VOs actually requires the player to cackle for as long as their character is cackling.
Ahh. You guys are like the play-off act.
Look over here while we hook this horrible thread offstage.
|
|
The rules...The rules say what type of activities and actions cause fatigue. Doing a million perception checks isn't listed under any of those, nor defined as it's own cause of fatigue. Thus it doesn't cause fatigue per the rules. Where are you getting this view that if the rules are undefined the default is realistic limitations? Almost nothing in this game works realistically.Sorry, didn't realize that was a quote. Unfortunately, 'continuous' turns is not the same thing as 'infinite' turns or 'unrestricted' turns so again, no proof. I cannot provide proof that the rules say you can't because my argument is that the rules are undefined on this point and thus default to realistic limitations.Another definitive statement without actually any rules evidence to support it. Can you, for example, show me the rule that says you can take infinite standard actions without conflicting with, say, the Fatigue rules?An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.
So during your turn you get the actions. The actions can be filled with any legal choice. out of combat you have continuous turns.
I quoted the PRD about actions.
Can you site anything limiting actions or otherwise proving us wrong? We have provided the rules that say it's legal. It's now your turn to provide the exception and prove us wrong. Perhaps it is this Fatigue Rules you speak of, I've never seen such a section.
In pathfinder if the rules don't say it applies then it doesn't. Walking doesn't make you sickened because the rules don't say so, I don't see you questioning if you spontaneously die in your sleep since the rules don't specifically say one way or the other
|
|
I love it when people assume that the entire game occurs in combat rounds. Until initiative is rolled, there ARE no "move actions" or "standard actions". Until the guard detects something, he is effectively surprised and flatfooted. He can't take 20 to detect something, since that takes 1 minute.
So if we're not in combat and there are no "move actions" how can I "intentionally search for stimulus" if it is a move action to do so?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
In pathfinder if the rules don't say it applies then it doesn't. Walking doesn't make you sickened because the rules don't say so, I don't see you questioning if you spontaneously die in your sleep since the rules don't specifically say one way or the other
My argument has always been that when the rules don't say something, then you default to reality (though this can sometimes be trumped for reasons of game playability). Since, in reality, you don't normally get sickened from walking, then I don't question it. Since in reality you don't normally spontaneously die in your sleep, I don't question it. Since, in reality, you can't spend 8 Hours straight attempting to actively perceive something without so much as a break, then I do question it.
|
|
Perception checks are made reactively, when there is something to perceive, or when you ask for one. It doesn't need to be done in combat, and my point was that saying one can be taking twenty for hours on end is not supported by the rules.
You can't be ready for combat at all times - that is what initiative IS. Even when you and the other gunslinger are at high noon at the OK Corral, and you draw first, you still roll initiative to see who shoots first.
I won't convince you, but If we are ever at the same table I'd be happy to rule on it for you, or accept your ruling on it if you are the GM.
|
|
Since, in reality, you can't spend 8 Hours straight attempting to actively perceive something without so much as a break, then I do question it.
Yes, it is humanly possible to do so. You're going to be tired towards the end, and possibly distracted (hey, unable to take 10, we're back to the OP!) but you can certainly do it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Since, in reality, you can't spend 8 Hours straight attempting to actively perceive something without so much as a break, then I do question it.Yes, it is humanly possible to do so. You're going to be tired towards the end, and possibly distracted (hey, unable to take 10, we're back to the OP!) but you can certainly do it.
Maybe. I would like to see evidence of that. Say like the world record for how long someone spent trying to find Waldo uninterrupted. Certainly eye strain would be an issue. That and other issues would keep most people from doing it without a reeeaaaaallly good reason. Your average guard is hardly that motivated.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Maybe. I would like to see evidence of that.Ask an infantryman.
I would argue they are Taking 10, not 20. Taking 20 requires much more active awareness than is normally required of guard duty. Of course, if you are refereeing to an active combat zone where the enemy may pop out at any moment, then I might be more inclined to agree with you as that would be sufficient motivation.
|
I also like it.I like that explanation...
If I wasn't making this check, would I be considered in "immediate danger"?
If yes, you can't Take 10. If no, you can Take 10.
<sarcasm>To go back to the jumping a 10 foot hole;
1)If your feet are 10 feet from the edge, and you are not tied to something, then yes the government considers you in immediate danger.2)to answer your question, Yes, if you tried to proceed over that 10 foot area and did not try to make this check walking straight out you would be intermediate danger, so by the explanation as quoted, you would not be able to take 10.
</sarcasm>
Another question to counter the explanation I quoted in the 10 foot hole scenario:
So a ready action happens before the thing it is interrupting correct?
If the 'immediate danger' only counts if you are in danger before the attempt.... what about a scenario where there is someone stealthed with a bow, with a readied action to hit the first person that tried to jump the pit while they were in the air. If they don't make the jump, they are not in immediate danger, but as soon as they make the jump, before the results are determined, they are (yes something like this came up in a PFS game when it was a bad guy jumping the pit). Do you just modify the difficulty of the jump to simulate the twisting away from a arrow midair? or do they count as in "immediate danger" before the jump because they will be attacked, even if there are no hostile people visible? What if the 'archer' is a indiana jones style dart trap that attacks you as soon as you pass between two points (directly over the pit)? What if the first 20 feet on the other side is an illusion, and the actual pit is 30 feet wide not 10? especially in the last case. You're trying to jump 10 feet across a 30 foot pit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why should we as GMs have to give PCs 'free perception checks' as part of the jump check. Perception isn't part of the skill. So in those instances either the check is always dangerous, or they take damage because it "wasn't dangerous before you jumped, but became so as soon as you left the ground, if you had rolled, you might have made it though".
I would posture that the same danger is posed by jumping without doing a perception check of the room. If you specifically look to the other side and confirm there is a landing zone, you should be alright to take ten. If you don't know where you are going to land, you may hit gravel, a loose rock, a slippery (wet or moss covered) rocks. It happens at least once a season in Cop shows either the bad guy misjudges where he's going to land or the cop does during a case across rooftops... if its the bad guy, he falls to his death, if its a cop, he grabs onto the side of the roof and let the bad guy get away. As I said in the sarcastic part of my post, unless you take pains to prevent the danger by tying yourself off before jumping, the danger is there.
So you make a claim that the rules say "X" and when someone asks for explicit proof that the rules do indeed say "X" your response is that proof is not required? Guess again. Quit reiterating that the rules say "X" as if repeating it makes it true and show me in the rules where you are correct, or, quite frankly, quit pretending you have a valid argument.
No, I am not required to prove a negative to you in order to accept that "can" actually means "can" and not "can, unless." The rules dont say "unless" so there is no "unless." It is that simple. The rules tell you what fatigue is and how it is acquired. This isn't one of the ways.
But the biggest reason it isn't required to "prove" to you that "can" means "can" is that the rules are not so poorly written. There is no disclaimer that says "The following 500 pages and every book we publish afterward is BS if it doesn't jive with reality, unless it is meant to not jive with reality and we aren't going to tell you how to tell them apart! HAHA! Jokes on you this book is worthless!!!"
That would be intentionally introducing a rule that was MEANT TO CAUSE table-variation. That is actually the opposite of what rules are meant for. Rules are meant to give uniform(-ish) play. Intentionally introducing a rule that would be subject to what a DM find "realistic" is folly and isn't a RPG anymore it's just fantasy fun-time story game. I didn't spend $1000 on books to play fantasy fun-time story game. I spent $1000 on Pathfinder. In Pathfinder "can" means "can" not "can, unless."
|
|
...
I admit. I didn't understand it at first either. But one of the designers at the time, specifically Sean K Reynolds, changed my mind with a post that is linked way above.It shows what the designers intent was. Which in something that was slightly ambiguous was very important to me in how I decided to interpret things from that point forward.
Almost everyone I have talked to agreed with the interpretation we have all been using.
Until this thread, I had never seen or even heard of this post from SKR. Even then, that thread doesn't really say that is what the rule means. It sounds more like he is saying "I do it this way because it seems to work better." Actually I'm fine with that. But if that was really what they wanted the rule to say, put it in the errata / faq / or multiple re-printings of the book.
Obviously a heck of a lot of us are going to continue reading it they way many of us already have.A lot of these posts are sounding like we are obviously horrible, mean, vindictive GM's. There is apparently no reasonable way anyone could think take 10 isn't allowed for almost anything. Because obviously we all should magically know SKR suggests handling it like this.
So, according to your interpretation, if I am understanding it correctly, you can never take 10 while swimming? After all, you are in danger of drowning if you fail your Swim check.
So you make a claim that the rules say "X" and when someone asks for explicit proof that the rules do indeed say "X" your response is that proof is not required? Guess again. Quit reiterating that the rules say "X" as if repeating it makes it true and show me in the rules where you are correct, or, quite frankly, quit pretending you have a valid argument.No, I am not required to prove a negative to you in order to accept that "can" actually means "can" and not "can, unless." The rules dont say "unless" so there is no "unless." It is that simple. The rules tell you what fatigue is and how it is acquired. This isn't one of the ways.
But the biggest reason it isn't required to "prove" to you that "can" means "can" is that the rules are not so poorly written. There is no disclaimer that says "The following 500 pages and every book we publish afterward is BS if it doesn't jive with reality, unless it is meant to not jive with reality and we aren't going to tell you how to tell them apart! HAHA! Jokes on you this book is worthless!!!"
That would be intentionally introducing a rule that was MEANT TO CAUSE table-variation. That is actually the opposite of what rules are meant for. Rules are meant to give uniform(-ish) play. Intentionally introducing a rule that would be subject to what a DM find "realistic" is folly and isn't a RPG anymore it's just fantasy fun-time story game. I didn't spend $1000 on books to play fantasy fun-time story game. I spent $1000 on Pathfinder. In Pathfinder "can" means "can" not "can, unless."
So you can take actions while dead? There is no rule saying you can't and the only thing that tells us that's stupid is common sense based on reality.
The rules are that poorly written, if you will. Or as I'd put it, they're not written to be that complete, but to be understood along with our common sense. As an approximation and abstraction of what's happening in the game world, not as laws of physics.
Yea, thejeff, I think that you should let dead characters take actions at your table. Because that's a total analog to what I said.
Or actually, if you read it the way I say, "dead" means "dead" not "dead, unless." actually takes care of that problem too.
|
Do I have to carry the players of my dead companions as well?For the same reason I dont allow perma cackling.One of our VOs actually requires the player to cackle for as long as their character is cackling.
Heck, I may have to institute this rule at my tables! I'll call it a team-building exercise, it could be just like trust falls, only with corpses.
Back to the topic at hand:
If I jump into a ten-foot pit, do I still have to listen to these types of asinine arguments (from both sides) on the PFS forums?
|
So, just to possibly prove a point. Andy C. was GMing a group I was playing in on Sunday, and I was playing my Rogue Silbeg (second time he's GMed that character in this group...) This was in a high level module, and Silbeg has trap-spotter. I told Andy I'll just take 10 on all perception checks (for a 39, I believe) -- and Andy was just fine with that. And with my take-10 of 48 when disabling device he auto-succeeded at traps (and the few locked doors). He chuckled about it, and we moved on!
Now, I will say that this character has worked hard to get this level of competence (including magic items, max skill ranks, class bonus, etc). This is just an example of a reward for a character well built for his primary role (that, and he hits like a ton of bricks when he can sneak attack).
I am of the same opinion... and often ask players if they want to take ten... regardless of if I think they will succeed or not.
And, I will also state that if you cannot take 10 while climbing, most characters WILL fail (not if, when) -- let's assume that our characters are well trained Pathfinders and a simple climbing effort is not going to scare the bejeebus out of them! They'll just approach it calmly, and get it done (unless an Eyrine is flying overhead, shooting her bow!)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
So you make a claim that the rules say "X" and when someone asks for explicit proof that the rules do indeed say "X" your response is that proof is not required? Guess again. Quit reiterating that the rules say "X" as if repeating it makes it true and show me in the rules where you are correct, or, quite frankly, quit pretending you have a valid argument.No, I am not required to prove a negative to you in order to accept that "can" actually means "can" and not "can, unless."
Um, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove a positive, i.e. prove that the rules say you say what they are saying. This should be easily done by quoting the rules.
Um, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove a positive, i.e. prove that the rules say you say what they are saying. This should be easily done by quoting the rules.So you make a claim that the rules say "X" and when someone asks for explicit proof that the rules do indeed say "X" your response is that proof is not required? Guess again. Quit reiterating that the rules say "X" as if repeating it makes it true and show me in the rules where you are correct, or, quite frankly, quit pretending you have a valid argument.No, I am not required to prove a negative to you in order to accept that "can" actually means "can" and not "can, unless."
No you certainly did.
I asserted the affirmative statement, "can" means "can."
You then asked me to prove the negative that "can" doesn't mean "can, unless."
I don't have to prove negatives.
