Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Camarath" data-source="post: 1665035" data-attributes="member: 11987">Of course I know how the sentence is suppose to read and how the ability is suppose to work. This whole debate has been about me stating the the ability was not written such that it actually means what it is supposed to mean.&nbsp;I do not believe that is correct. And if that is true why does the sentence not limit itself to the first foe dropped?&nbsp;I think you are basing your reading of this sentence on what you assume to be true and are thus limiting the possible meanings of the sentence. I believe that other things are true and thus I support a reading of the which you exclude based on how you believe that ability should work.&nbsp;In some possible circumstances the sentence is false. A character with only cleave and the second dropped foe in a round is a possiblity that triggers the sentence but that the sentence does not exclude.&nbsp;I think that &quot;or possibly&quot; alternative only applies based on which foe is dropped and which feats the character has.&nbsp;It is a possibility but not the only one or IMO the one the best fits the sentence as written.&nbsp;Possibly means that one may or may not gain the extra attacks based one the circumstances.&nbsp;The &quot;or possibily&quot; alternative only applies is it is both.&nbsp;IMO the &quot;or possibily&quot; alternative would not apply since it would not be possible to gain multiple attacks from dropping one foe in those circumstances.&nbsp;Nowhere since one could not in that case gain multiple attacks.&nbsp;I am not really concerned with why he wrote what he wrote or if it makes sense for him to have done so. I am intrested in what was written and what it means. There is no point to this whole debate if I start accept that things mean what the author meant to write rather author actually wrote.&nbsp;I am claiming that the sentence can mean what I am asserting that it mean. This sentence was not meant to deal with the issue we are addressing so some unclarity on this issue is IMO prefectly understandable and excusable.&nbsp;I have not seen any case where a character can gain Great Cleave with out Cleave. Do you know of one?&nbsp;The sentence does allow for one to have Great Cleave without Cleave but in that case the &quot;or possibily&quot; alternative would not apply.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Camarath, post: 1665035, member: 11987"] Of course I know how the sentence is suppose to read and how the ability is suppose to work. This whole debate has been about me stating the the ability was not written such that it actually means what it is supposed to mean. I do not believe that is correct. And if that is true why does the sentence not limit itself to the first foe dropped? I think you are basing your reading of this sentence on what you assume to be true and are thus limiting the possible meanings of the sentence. I believe that other things are true and thus I support a reading of the which you exclude based on how you believe that ability should work. In some possible circumstances the sentence is false. A character with only cleave and the second dropped foe in a round is a possiblity that triggers the sentence but that the sentence does not exclude. I think that "or possibly" alternative only applies based on which foe is dropped and which feats the character has. It is a possibility but not the only one or IMO the one the best fits the sentence as written. Possibly means that one may or may not gain the extra attacks based one the circumstances. The "or possibily" alternative only applies is it is both. IMO the "or possibily" alternative would not apply since it would not be possible to gain multiple attacks from dropping one foe in those circumstances. Nowhere since one could not in that case gain multiple attacks. I am not really concerned with why he wrote what he wrote or if it makes sense for him to have done so. I am intrested in what was written and what it means. There is no point to this whole debate if I start accept that things mean what the author meant to write rather author actually wrote. I am claiming that the sentence can mean what I am asserting that it mean. This sentence was not meant to deal with the issue we are addressing so some unclarity on this issue is IMO prefectly understandable and excusable. I have not seen any case where a character can gain Great Cleave with out Cleave. Do you know of one? The sentence does allow for one to have Great Cleave without Cleave but in that case the "or possibily" alternative would not apply. [/QUOTE]

Verification