Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 4387151" data-attributes="member: 6239">Hmm....You claim you would be content and then go on to show you would not be content.The regression is clear in your previous statement: &quot;Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use...&quot;.&nbsp; You regress to the beginning of the power in order to rectify the option of &quot;choose a different target&quot;.&nbsp; This becomes an infinite regression until the paladin choose the only REAL option in your opinion, engage.In my method, there is NO regression.&nbsp; Targeting is changing your target.&nbsp; Changing your target is one of the two things you must do on your turn to ensure the challenge continues.&nbsp; Simple.Can you make any argument beyond the only one you have repeated several times?Now you are repeating yourself in back to back posts.&nbsp; This really isn't getting us anywhere.Of course you can, you can change targets once per round.&nbsp; You have satisfied one of the two options: changing targets.&nbsp; In essence, challenging a new target always satisfies one condition of the ability for the turn it is used.And that would be the clearest indication of your interpretation's problem.&nbsp; You leave off half the options in the first turn the ability is used.Have we beat this point to death yet?&nbsp; Let me ask you a meta-question: is a lawyeristic, semantics focused method of rules interpretation the only way the rules should be interpreted?&nbsp; You've decided what you think the text says, I decided my interpretation.&nbsp; Should all such disagreements be settled by literature professors and lawyers or is this an RPG to play and have fun?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LokiDR, post: 4387151, member: 6239"] Hmm.... You claim you would be content and then go on to show you would not be content. The regression is clear in your previous statement: "Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use...". You regress to the beginning of the power in order to rectify the option of "choose a different target". This becomes an infinite regression until the paladin choose the only REAL option in your opinion, engage. In my method, there is NO regression. Targeting is changing your target. Changing your target is one of the two things you must do on your turn to ensure the challenge continues. Simple. Can you make any argument beyond the only one you have repeated several times? Now you are repeating yourself in back to back posts. This really isn't getting us anywhere. Of course you can, you can change targets once per round. You have satisfied one of the two options: changing targets. In essence, challenging a new target always satisfies one condition of the ability for the turn it is used. And that would be the clearest indication of your interpretation's problem. You leave off half the options in the first turn the ability is used. Have we beat this point to death yet? Let me ask you a meta-question: is a lawyeristic, semantics focused method of rules interpretation the only way the rules should be interpreted? You've decided what you think the text says, I decided my interpretation. Should all such disagreements be settled by literature professors and lawyers or is this an RPG to play and have fun? [/QUOTE]

Verification