Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2774475" data-attributes="member: 18280">Again, easily testable:&nbsp; NPC foe pretends to be an ally.&nbsp; Put him in flanking position.&nbsp; What happens?From what you are saying, it seems that I am to understand that, in effect, because there is no rule for what I am attempting to model, my argument is therefore fatally flawed?&nbsp; Every text, whether it be a rules text, a novel, or a textbook, includes within it both an explicit text (what is said) and an implicit text (what is implied by what is said).&nbsp; For example, the rules do not need to tell you that you must touch the ground in order to walk.&nbsp; This does not mean that your characters float.You say that &quot;there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say.&quot;&nbsp; I say that &quot;there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say, what they imply, and how well they function related to what you wish to model.&quot;&nbsp; This may be a fundamental difference in our approach.Contrary to what you claim, I do not &quot;keep trying to ignore&quot; the difference between ally and foe within the rules.&nbsp; I am, rather, using that difference within a number of scenarios to demonstrate that there are subtexts implied by where those differences are explicit in the rules.&nbsp; This is something, in contrast, that you explicitly deny to exist.I say &quot;If we examine what is happening in the rules, we can work out some idea of why the rules exist the way they exist, and then use that structure to model something not included in the rules as written.&quot;You deny that this is conceptually possible.&nbsp; Yet at the same time, you claim that &quot;To treat you as helpless with respect to that opponent - because you must completely ignore them to negate the distraction caused by flanking.&quot; which is, in itself, a function of that same process.Do they get different bonuses or the same bonus?&nbsp; Sounds like defending equally to me.No, I am suggesting very clearly that it is possible to create a house rule in which a creature pays as much attention to an opponent as it does to an NPC ally, and no more.&nbsp; You claim that this is somehow impossible.&nbsp; I demonstrated a means by which such a conclusion could be devised.&nbsp; You said &quot;No&quot; and came up with an alternate conclusion without providing any chain of reasoning behind it.The initial question that began this thread was (paraphrased):&nbsp; Can you devise a house rule that allows you to ignore an opponent enough to avoid a flanking bonus?&nbsp; The answer is, obviously, yes.&nbsp; We both agree that such a rule is possible.&nbsp; We both agree on a certain division of attention.&nbsp; What we disagree on is what division is possible, and what the consequences of such a division are.The only question that remains is IF you allow a house rule that allows for a different division of attention WHAT is the best way to model that division?Your answer seems to be that attention is &quot;all or nothing&quot; and that &quot;nothing&quot; implies &quot;helpless&quot;.Meanwhile, the SRD says &quot;You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity.&quot;If you were right, then casting a spell would require your &quot;full attention&quot; -- and &quot;full attention&quot; means &quot;all of it&quot; to most people.&nbsp; In other words, giving your attention to nothing else.&nbsp; In other words, ignoring everything else.&nbsp; Casting a spell wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity; it would provoke a coup de grace.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2774475, member: 18280"] Again, easily testable: NPC foe pretends to be an ally. Put him in flanking position. What happens? From what you are saying, it seems that I am to understand that, in effect, because there is no rule for what I am attempting to model, my argument is therefore fatally flawed? Every text, whether it be a rules text, a novel, or a textbook, includes within it both an explicit text (what is said) and an implicit text (what is implied by what is said). For example, the rules do not need to tell you that you must touch the ground in order to walk. This does not mean that your characters float. You say that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say." I say that "there is no other way to evaluate the rules except based upon what they say, what they imply, and how well they function related to what you wish to model." This may be a fundamental difference in our approach. Contrary to what you claim, I do not "keep trying to ignore" the difference between ally and foe within the rules. I am, rather, using that difference within a number of scenarios to demonstrate that there are subtexts implied by where those differences are explicit in the rules. This is something, in contrast, that you explicitly deny to exist. I say "If we examine what is happening in the rules, we can work out some idea of why the rules exist the way they exist, and then use that structure to model something not included in the rules as written." You deny that this is conceptually possible. Yet at the same time, you claim that "To treat you as helpless with respect to that opponent - because you must completely ignore them to negate the distraction caused by flanking." which is, in itself, a function of that same process. Do they get different bonuses or the same bonus? Sounds like defending equally to me. No, I am suggesting very clearly that it is possible to create a house rule in which a creature pays as much attention to an opponent as it does to an NPC ally, and no more. You claim that this is somehow impossible. I demonstrated a means by which such a conclusion could be devised. You said "No" and came up with an alternate conclusion without providing any chain of reasoning behind it. The initial question that began this thread was (paraphrased): Can you devise a house rule that allows you to ignore an opponent enough to avoid a flanking bonus? The answer is, obviously, yes. We both agree that such a rule is possible. We both agree on a certain division of attention. What we disagree on is what division is possible, and what the consequences of such a division are. The only question that remains is IF you allow a house rule that allows for a different division of attention WHAT is the best way to model that division? Your answer seems to be that attention is "all or nothing" and that "nothing" implies "helpless". Meanwhile, the SRD says "You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity." If you were right, then casting a spell would require your "full attention" -- and "full attention" means "all of it" to most people. In other words, giving your attention to nothing else. In other words, ignoring everything else. Casting a spell wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity; it would provoke a coup de grace. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification