Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Virago" data-source="post: 106528" data-attributes="member: 2045">KD:No.&nbsp; The first quote does not logically imply &quot;if you move more than 5' in a round, you do provoke an AoO.&quot;&nbsp; Logically, the first quote cites ONE example of when you avoid AoOs from moving.For example, the statement &quot;if you have only one dog, his name is spot&quot; makes no claims positive or negative about what your dogs' names can be if you have two dogs.&nbsp; In this context, the words on p. 117 would say:&quot;The ways your dog can be named Spot include: ... if you have only one dog, his name is Spot.&quot;&nbsp; What if I have two dogs?&nbsp; What is there to say they cannot both be named Spot?Nowhere in the game can you move through two threatened spaces in a round and not provoke a movement AoO from the second space unless you have some feat or skill that prevents it.This is sort of assuming the to-prove.&nbsp; &quot;There is nothing else like B, therefore B cannot exist.&quot;&nbsp; Literally (and stupidly), the rules say you can take a 5' step with both a partial action and a full round action, and avoid AoOs with both.I understand the contradiction argument completely.&nbsp; I'm not sure you understood my post.&nbsp; Here's what I said again:(1) If you assume that the MEA quote on p. 121 is general, you don't need the contradiction argument.&nbsp; Artoomis used it because he decided that the glossary's &quot;a 5' step does not count as a move in combat&quot; means that taking a 5' step would not count as &quot;moving any actual distance during the round&quot; which seems obviously silly.&nbsp; Even if it didn't &quot;count as a move,&quot; you still moved some actual distance.&nbsp; Interpreting them super-strictly as non-moves means that &quot;if your entire move for a round is.. (a 5' step),&quot; is actually a rule that makes no sense at all.(2) If you don't assume the MEA quote is general, there's nothing that says that two magical glossary-entry style 5' steps in a round DO provoke AoOs.(3) Even if it did, so what?&nbsp; The rules are stupid in so many other cases.&nbsp; Literally interpreting the rules for 5' steps is silly, and a person who claims &quot;only one 5' step! it's in the rules but it's clear!&quot; is exaggerating things quite a bit.If you want to argue this more, attack points 1 or 2 directly in a way that isn't a mere restatement of the contradiction idea.&nbsp; The point is that even if you do attack 1, the interpretation of the MEA quote as being general is still questionable, because it's not clear at all that it is general when read literally.So it can never be straightforward.Finally, yet another counter argument:(4) There is a hidden assumption in the contradiction argument: namely, it is assumed that if the rules can be interpreted in two ways, one of which is contradictory to other rules, then the non-contradictory way is the &quot;literally meant&quot; way.&nbsp; This may not be true, and there are a few examples of the PHB being glaringly self-contradictory.&nbsp; In other words, if a conclusion is &quot;the rules as written imply X,&quot; then you can't conclude that the rules as written don't imply X just because X contradicts some other statement Y.&nbsp; For all you know, Y could be incorrect.&nbsp; All you have proved is that somewhere, something is in error if the rules want to present a logical system with this interpretation.So I might argue something like: the rules imply you get two 5' steps with haste but neither avoid AoOs.&nbsp; The glossary entry contradicts this--hence, the glossary entry is wrong.&nbsp; How is this, literally and logically, any different from the contradiction argument?&nbsp; Would I then try to claim that the rules are &quot;obscure, but technically correct&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Virago, post: 106528, member: 2045"] KD: No. The first quote does [i]not[/i] logically imply "if you move more than 5' in a round, you do provoke an AoO." Logically, the first quote cites ONE example of when you avoid AoOs from moving. For example, the statement "if you have only one dog, his name is spot" makes no claims positive or negative about what your dogs' names can be if you have two dogs. In this context, the words on p. 117 would say: "The ways your dog can be named Spot include: ... if you have only one dog, his name is Spot." What if I have two dogs? What is there to say they cannot both be named Spot? [b]Nowhere in the game can you move through two threatened spaces in a round and not provoke a movement AoO from the second space unless you have some feat or skill that prevents it.[/b] This is sort of assuming the to-prove. "There is nothing else like B, therefore B cannot exist." Literally (and stupidly), the rules say you can take a 5' step with both a partial action and a full round action, and avoid AoOs with both. I understand the contradiction argument completely. I'm not sure you understood my post. Here's what I said again: (1) If you assume that the MEA quote on p. 121 is general, you don't [i]need[/i] the contradiction argument. Artoomis used it because he decided that the glossary's "a 5' step does not count as a move in combat" means that taking a 5' step would not count as "moving any actual distance during the round" which seems obviously silly. Even if it didn't "count as a move," you still moved some actual distance. Interpreting them super-strictly as non-moves means that "if your entire move for a round is.. (a 5' step)," is actually a rule that makes no sense at all. (2) If you don't assume the MEA quote is general, there's nothing that says that two magical glossary-entry style 5' steps in a round DO provoke AoOs. (3) Even if it did, so what? The rules are stupid in so many other cases. Literally interpreting the rules for 5' steps is silly, and a person who claims "only one 5' step! it's in the rules but it's clear!" is exaggerating things quite a bit. If you want to argue this more, attack points 1 or 2 directly in a way that isn't a mere restatement of the contradiction idea. The point is that even if you do attack 1, the interpretation of the MEA quote as being general is still questionable, because it's [i]not[/i] clear at all that it is general when read literally. So it can never be straightforward. Finally, yet another counter argument: (4) There is a hidden assumption in the contradiction argument: namely, it is assumed that if the rules can be interpreted in two ways, one of which is contradictory to other rules, then the non-contradictory way is the "literally meant" way. This may not be true, and there are a few examples of the PHB being glaringly self-contradictory. In other words, if a conclusion is "the rules as written imply X," then you [b]can't[/b] conclude that the rules as written don't imply X just because X contradicts some other statement Y. For all you know, Y could be incorrect. All you have proved is that somewhere, something is in error if the rules want to present a logical system with this interpretation. So I might argue something like: the rules imply you get two 5' steps with [i]haste[/i] but neither avoid AoOs. The glossary entry contradicts this--hence, the glossary entry is wrong. How is this, literally and logically, any different from the contradiction argument? Would I then try to claim that the rules are "obscure, but technically correct"? [/QUOTE]

Verification