Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cynric 04-29-07, 04:00 AM	I was just wondering if an errata has been released for this. I have looked but cannot seem to find it. This is a problem as I have found discovered what some GM's are calling a typo in a feat that makes a great deal of difference to the output of a build. For those who are interested, the point is as follows. Blood spiked Charger tactical feat page 92 under the manouver of spiked slam states the following; As a full round action when you are weilding a spiked shield, you can opt to make only a single attackat your base attack bonus. You brase yourself behind yourself behind your spiked sheild, drive yourself forward, and slam into your foe. You enter your foes space which provokes attacks of opportunity. In return, your attack deals extra damage equal to twice your strength and an additional amount based on your size. After making this attack, youstumble back into the square you occupied just before making this attack. Until the start of your next turn, you do not threaten any squares. The question that has arisen, at least as far as I am concerned, is the lack of the word bonus after the word strength, as you can imagine, this would make a great deal of difference to the damage the character would output. I have found three GM's in the local are state that they will rule that the word bonus is implied. Personally I do not care one way or the other, but was wondering what other peoples rulings would be?
TWG_Prometheus 04-29-07, 08:38 AM	I was just wondering if an errata has been released for this. I have looked but cannot seem to find it. This is a problem as I have found discovered what some GM's are calling a typo in a feat that makes a great deal of difference to the output of a build. For those who are interested, the point is as follows. Blood spiked Charger tactical feat page 92 under the manouver of spiked slam states the following; As a full round action when you are weilding a spiked shield, you can opt to make only a single attackat your base attack bonus. You brase yourself behind yourself behind your spiked sheild, drive yourself forward, and slam into your foe. You enter your foes space which provokes attacks of opportunity. In return, your attack deals extra damage equal to twice your strength and an additional amount based on your size. After making this attack, youstumble back into the square you occupied just before making this attack. Until the start of your next turn, you do not threaten any squares. The question that has arisen, at least as far as I am concerned, is the lack of the word bonus after the word strength, as you can imagine, this would make a great deal of difference to the damage the character would output. I have found three GM's in the local are state that they will rule that the word bonus is implied. Personally I do not care one way or the other, but was wondering what other peoples rulings would be? I'd have to agree with them...implied bonus. Twice your Strength score is both completely unconventional from a 'what we've seen before' standpoint and utterly insane from a balance standpoint. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why we bother with Strength or Charisma scores anymore. Odd amounts of any ability score matter so rarely, it seems we could get away with reducing everything down to a modifier number. (Ability damage and ect, but you could tweak them to work.)
Eric Anondson 04-29-07, 02:23 PM	I can see both sides, but I fall on the side that says it should be STR bonus, not STR score. If this means STR score than this feat is one of those feats we probably want out of the campaign because of what it would mean if authors gave it to monsters. I mean, give this giants or trolls with one barbarian level and potions of bull's strength... You'd have single attacks that automatically deal massive damage save or death every round... if the PC surives the hit. Let's take an elite array hill giant barbarian. CR8. Str 37 (elite array STR 15, plus racial +14, plus rage +4, plus bull's strength +4). Spiked slam with large spiked shield grabbed with 2 hands: 2d6+1d8+19+74 (plus possible Power Attack... and who wouldn't add more with a STR 37?). Average of 104 out of a CR 8 monster from a beast that will hang around a few rounds with about 138 hp. That would probably take out a PC and then Cleave into the next for the same average damage. No. It just seems sensible that this implies STR bonus, not only because of the obnoxiousness that comes from giving it to monsters, but upon closer examination. It require a BAB of +6, meaning a character would have iterative attacks by now. So the spike slam effectively means giving up the iterative attack at –5 to hit for a chance to deal automatic extra damage on the single attack. The automatic extra damage is a little less than a normal attack. So, –5 to hit attack with normal damage vs. a little less than normal damage but automatic. Seems about right for a tactical feat.
Mommy was an Orc 04-29-07, 06:12 PM	The question that has arisen, at least as far as I am concerned, is the lack of the word bonus after the word strength, as you can imagine, this would make a great deal of difference to the damage the character would output. I have found three GM's in the local are state that they will rule that the word bonus is implied. Personally I do not care one way or the other, but was wondering what other peoples rulings would be? I think the intent was to have double strength, not strength bonus. Why would anyone use it if it were strength bonus - As a full attack action, you're taking an attack of opportunity, you're losing your shield bonus to AC, you're only getting a single attack(as someone with an iterative), and for what? 1d6+4 damage? That said, I don't think they thought it through very well.
GorTeX 04-30-07, 01:13 AM	and for what? 1d6+4 damage? I doubt many PC's with a 14 str will take this feat. Much more effective when you can double your enlarged Barbarian's Str 22 bonus :)
Cynric 04-30-07, 05:53 AM	Ok this is the way I see it. In every other place regarding strength to damage, it is specifically stated strength bonus. In this case it does not. While this may seen overpowered, look at the requirements, 3 feats plus this one. When you make this manouver, you provoke an AoO. This means you take a risk of being hit and taking damage. You also give up all of your actions for the entire round (full round action). Also consider it states that you threaten no squares, I assume this means your own in which case any opponent can walk up to you and disarm you, trip you, or even walk through your square without consequences. Now does it sound like a fair trade for double strength. It does to me.
Timlagor 04-30-07, 06:41 AM	Definitely the Strength Bonus. They would have made it clearer if they didn't mean the bonus because it's just too weird to use the base strength score. Not every Feat is actually any good.
Cynric 04-30-07, 06:51 AM	Definitely the Strength Bonus. They would have made it clearer if they didn't mean the bonus because it's just too weird to use the base strength score. Not every Feat is actually any good. So what you are saying is that it gives you the same capability as a fighter two handing a greatsword, at the cost of all of your actions? This is the main issue I can't get my head around.
Potato Weasel 04-30-07, 08:12 AM	Well, with all the buffs you could get into that one hit, it could be well worth it. Consider the bonus damage you would get with a cleric with the strength domain, or a large buffed up raging centaur. Also, it's quite good if you dont think your iterative attacks will work, etc. As for disarming you while you dont threaten, you still get your opposed attack roll, even if your completely flat footed, and opponents cant enter your square unless they tumble through you. And even if this part of the feat isnt for you, its still only part of it. Spiked avalanche (the first bit) allows you to attack with a spiked shield and armor spikes and deal normal weapon damage plus twice your strength bonus on a charge. I'd say that this is the real meat of the feat that most people would be using often.
Mommy was an Orc 04-30-07, 08:27 AM	I doubt many PC's with a 14 str will take this feat. Much more effective when you can double your enlarged Barbarian's Str 22 bonus :) I'm not saying it is balanced. I'm talking about apparent intent here. You've already got your strength bonus * 1.5 for using your shield two-handed in the 1st place. An enlarged Barbarian with a 30 Strength does an extra 1d8+4 for giving up a full attack/taking an AoO with what almost certainly is a magical shield of some sort. It is the AoO which I think is the tipoff here - the writer thought he was balancing something that was extremely powerful. Doing an extra 1d8+4 isn't powerful. Also, I would not allow the Cleave at the same bonus - you cannot take more than one 5' step per round.
MatteBlack 04-30-07, 09:56 AM	My impression is that it should be twice your strength bonus. If it were one times your strength, It might be believable but, 2 times is just too much. Lee
DroidTrooper 04-30-07, 10:57 AM	I'm not saying it is balanced. I'm talking about apparent intent here. You've already got your strength bonus * 1.5 for using your shield two-handed in the 1st place. An enlarged Barbarian with a 30 Strength does an extra 1d8+4 for giving up a full attack/taking an AoO with what almost certainly is a magical shield of some sort. It is the AoO which I think is the tipoff here - the writer thought he was balancing something that was extremely powerful. Doing an extra 1d8+4 isn't powerful. A normal attack with a spiked shield by a large 30 strength barbarian does 1d8 + 10. A large 30 strength barbarian would do 1d8 + 20 extra damage utilizing the double strength modifier. An extra attack essentially at your same base modifier (granted not using powerattack.) A large 30 strength barbarian would do 1d8 + 60 extra damage using the double strength method. That is over 4 times as powerful as a standard attack. This is a tactical feat. We are discussing no more than 1/3 of the feat. The double strength modifier is much more in line with the other tactics listed.
bitznarf 04-30-07, 12:26 PM	I think that the 'strength score' is the way to go for this reason: balance. Compare casters to non-casters. There is no question that casters come out ahead in the end. *Maybe* not in the scope of LG, but they still do. Consider also that this is the 3rd feat in a feat tree. Why shouldn't it do something good? Take a look at Weapon Supremacy sometime. So a critter (PC or NPC) can take a full round action to draw an AoO, hit someone hard, and lose the ability to take AoOs yourself. We aren't dealing with a coup de grace here, the save doesn't scale with damage.
Timlagor 04-30-07, 12:28 PM	You've already got your strength bonus * 1.5 for using your shield two-handed in the 1st place. Assumign you're correct then you would use this to do 1dX + (3.5 x Str Bonus). It's an extra 2xStr bonus.
Mommy was an Orc 04-30-07, 01:33 PM	Assumign you're correct then you would use this to do 1dX + (3.5 x Str Bonus). It's an extra 2xStr bonus. Hmm. That makes more sense. I'd go with that.
bitznarf 04-30-07, 01:34 PM	Hmm. That makes more sense. I'd go with that. And toss out most other forms of D&D math? Ie. that x2 + x2 = x3
Mommy was an Orc 04-30-07, 01:52 PM	And toss out most other forms of D&D math? Ie. that x2 + x2 = x3 It isn't doing that. It is a feat that gives you your normal strength bonus and then an additional extra bonus based on your strength and size. Besides which, just using your strength score tosses out other forms of D&D math...
bitznarf 04-30-07, 03:10 PM	It isn't doing that. It is a feat that gives you your normal strength bonus and then an additional extra bonus based on your strength and size. Besides which, just using your strength score tosses out other forms of D&D math... I know of at least one other mechanic that uses score instead of bonus: drowning.
Cynric 05-01-07, 04:30 AM	Not that I expect the answer to be binding in any way shape or form. I have emailed this to ask wizards in the hope that we can get some sort of ruling. Unless Britt wants to weigh in? :D
Britt 05-01-07, 04:34 AM	You know better than that ;)
Cynric 05-01-07, 05:49 AM	Yeah, I do. Thought it was worth a try though.:P
Timlagor 05-01-07, 09:47 AM	And toss out most other forms of D&D math? Ie. that x2 + x2 = x3 That's not what teh D&D multiplication rules say. 'x2' MULTIPLIED BY 'x2 = 'x3' in D&D. x2 PLUS x2 = x4 anywhere.
bitznarf 05-01-07, 10:10 AM	That's not what teh D&D multiplication rules say. 'x2' MULTIPLIED BY 'x2 = 'x3' in D&D. x2 PLUS x2 = x4 anywhere. Can you provide me with an example where this is the case? All I seem to find is things like "a x2 modifier and a x2 modifier makes a x3 modifier" which when converted to math speak is x2 + x2 = x3. No that isn't an exact quote, but it is the gist behind what I know of D&D math. For example a spirited charge and a crit with a lance. x3 damage and x3 damage = x5 damage. Note that when percentages are used, sometimes things just do weird shi.. stuff.
Timlagor 05-01-07, 11:32 AM	Each of the x3s in your eample are being applied to the same thing. In this case you have your normal damage and then you add a totally seperate amount of damage of 2xStr. You are NOT multiplying your pervious damage by 2 but adding a seperate amount that happens to include Str as one of its determining factors. It's like adding 3d6 sneak attack except that the 3d6 happens to be 2xStr and not use the SnAt rules (..and isnt' bonu dice so it owuldbemultiplies on a crit but I hope you get het idea: it's a totally diffeerent lot of damage). I'm sure it could be explained more clearly.... I'll let you know if I work out how.
bitznarf 05-01-07, 11:59 AM	Each of the x3s in your eample are being applied to the same thing. In this case you have your normal damage and then you add a totally seperate amount of damage of 2xStr. You are NOT multiplying your pervious damage by 2 but adding a seperate amount that happens to include Str as one of its determining factors. It's like adding 3d6 sneak attack except that the 3d6 happens to be 2xStr and not use the SnAt rules (..and isn't' bonus dice so it would be multiplies on a crit but I hope you get the idea: it's a totally different lot of damage). I'm sure it could be explained more clearly.... I'll let you know if I work out how. That makes sense. Coming back to the original question though. The text says "In return, your attack deals extra damage equal to twice your strength and an additional amount based on your size." To me that reads like so: TotalDamage = NormalDamage + ExtraDamage ExtraDamage is defined as being "twice your strength plus an additional amount based on your size." Thus we get this: ExtraDamage = 2 * Strength + SizeBonus Not this: ExtraDamage = 2 * StrengthBonus + SizeBonus StrengthBonus = (Strength - 10) / 2 ExtraDamage = 2 * (Strength - 10) / 2 - 10 + SizeBonus ExtraDamage = Strength - 10 + SizeBonus I just can't imagine that the intent of the feat was to do this last (strength - 10 + size bonus). Giving up all your iterative attacks for that? Not gonna happen.
DroidTrooper 05-01-07, 08:01 PM	I have to disagree with you. If it wasn't for sad pre-reqs requiring dual WF in sub optimal weapons this feat would see use. This is a tactical feat, it gives you 3 seperate abilities. Spiked avalance is pretty good. Giving you giving you an extra attack and extra damage on a charge. Spiked rebuke is while requiring you to fight defensively, nets you an occasional +2 unnamed bonus to attacks has its uses. The Spiked slam tactic does not need to be worth an entire feat on its own. Both the above tactics are usable. And doing more than double normal damage for the cost of an AoO isn't the end of the world. An extra 2x strength damage is akin to 13d6 damage for a 20 strength fighter (the fact that it scales up makes it even more powerful). The only melee feat that can even remotely approach that is power attack. And that is only with a progressiving declining chance to hit/outside support (haste/snake swiftness etc.) What other melee feats add bonus damage anywhere near that magnitude?
bitznarf 05-01-07, 08:55 PM	What other melee feats add bonus damage anywhere near that magnitude? At the cost of all your iterative attacks.
ShinAkuma2 05-01-07, 10:23 PM	At the cost of all your iterative attacks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that, unless you're fighting someone with a very low AC, or you are very good at rolling 20s, iterive attacks aren't that important anyway.
Vamroc 05-01-07, 11:28 PM	I was just wondering if an errata has been released for this. I have looked but cannot seem to find it. This is a problem as I have found discovered what some GM's are calling a typo in a feat that makes a great deal of difference to the output of a build. For those who are interested, the point is as follows. Blood spiked Charger tactical feat page 92 under the manouver of spiked slam states the following; As a full round action when you are weilding a spiked shield, you can opt to make only a single attackat your base attack bonus. You brase yourself behind yourself behind your spiked sheild, drive yourself forward, and slam into your foe. You enter your foes space which provokes attacks of opportunity. In return, your attack deals extra damage equal to twice your strength and an additional amount based on your size. After making this attack, youstumble back into the square you occupied just before making this attack. Until the start of your next turn, you do not threaten any squares. The question that has arisen, at least as far as I am concerned, is the lack of the word bonus after the word strength, as you can imagine, this would make a great deal of difference to the damage the character would output. I have found three GM's in the local are state that they will rule that the word bonus is implied. Personally I do not care one way or the other, but was wondering what other peoples rulings would be? Strength Bonus is what they mean. Otherwise you would have Barbarian Orc Half Dragons with this feat potentially hitting players with a strength score of 84. The bonus to that score makes my brain hurt. Bull Strength is plus 4 Orc's get plus 4 race bonus they get another plus 4 when raging and +8 for being a Half Dragon that's a plus +20 to the strength score. Now add the base score which will most likely be 22 adding those numbers together gives you 42 aply the feat ( if you assume the feat means STR Score) and you come up with 84.
Japangirl 05-02-07, 02:47 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that, unless you're fighting someone with a very low AC, or you are very good at rolling 20s, iterive attacks aren't that important anyway. Iteratives are still important even if they hit less often. Many high level things have ACs in the 25-35 range, so assuming +25/+20/+15 (pretty good but not amazingly fantastic bonuses at 15) the secondary has a good chance to hit even the top end, and the tertiary could hit the bottom end. Also, as you said, more attacks is more chances to roll 20s and auto-hit. Obviously you do see things with AC 40-50, and they aren't a lot of fun. You also see things with AC 19, and they are also not a lot of fun, as anything with AC that low A) hits really hard and/or B) has a ton of hitpoints. Either way, you either want more chances to roll 20s or more chances to hit it to kill it faster.
Maesto 05-02-07, 03:41 AM	I think the more pertinent points are: a) You run a module where the BBEG has this feat. How do you run it? b) You run a module where a PC has this feat. How do you adjudicate it?
Eric Anondson 05-02-07, 04:48 PM	I think the more pertinent points are: a) You run a module where the BBEG has this feat. How do you run it? b) You run a module where a PC has this feat. How do you adjudicate it?Oh, I think we'd all like to see that APL 6 party go up against that CR 8 hill giant with around 130 hit points with an elite array and a single level in barbarian plus a potion of bull's strength charge the party and deal an average of 100 points of damage and cleave into the next PC for another 100 points of damage. Right? Well, at least it doesn't threaten for a round.
DroidTrooper 05-02-07, 06:26 PM	I think the more pertinent points are: a) You run a module where the BBEG has this feat. How do you run it? b) You run a module where a PC has this feat. How do you adjudicate it? A) A 20 strength level 6 fighter using a +1 spiked on a shield hits for: swings at +13 for 2d6 + 46 damage. On average that is 53 hp of damage. I expect a melee character at level 6 to have (10+6*5+2*6)=52 hp. So its a one hit to remove from combat. If the poor sob is not a high hit die he probably just went below -10. Either way its a fort save vs. death from massive damage. Since you should be facing 4-6 of the fighters for an ECL +0 encounter I think you can probably kill at least half the party fairly consistently. Even more likely if they don't realize how desperately they need to avoid a full round attack. Based on this, I think its pretty safe to say, I'd not run it with using 2x strength bonus to damage. For clarity sake I would probably avoid using that tactic all together. B. It really depends on the situation. If the player is insistant on it being a given way (and in this case I believe the text does support him even if its vastly out of the norm) I will play through the mod with it as the player claims. In future though I will decline to judge/play with that character as best as I am able.
Mommy was an Orc 05-02-07, 08:01 PM	Oh, I think we'd all like to see that APL 6 party go up against that CR 8 hill giant with around 130 hit points with an elite array and a single level in barbarian plus a potion of bull's strength charge the party and deal an average of 100 points of damage and cleave into the next PC for another 100 points of damage. Neither of which can happen, regardless of interpretation. You can't charge into someone's square. You can only cleave into someone you threaten. Not to mention, that Hill Giant needs to have WF: Spiked Armor and WF: Spiked Shield. Not exactly possible with the Hill Giant levels...
Eric Anondson 05-02-07, 08:55 PM	You can't charge into someone's square.Call it colorful use of the language. I didn't mean it as the charge action as defined in the game rules, but as a colloquial use of the word "charge". A charge doesn't change the damage output. You can only cleave into someone you threaten.Cleaves occur immediately, so it would occur before the PC stumbles back in to the square they started from. A Blood Spiked Charger doing the spiked slam loses the ability to threaten after they have stumbled back.Not to mention, that Hill Giant needs to have WF: Spiked Armor and WF: Spiked Shield. Not exactly possible with the Hill Giant levels...I've seen monster's feat selections custom rebuilt all the time. It is not a big deal to swap out Improved Bull Rush, Improved Sunder, and WF (great club) for the appropriate Weapon Focuses and Blood Spiked Charger for a BBEG.
Mommy was an Orc 05-02-07, 09:10 PM	Cleaves occur immediately, so it would occur before the PC stumbles back in to the square they started from. I'd easily rule otherwise. The stumbling back is part of the attack manuever and the Cleave occurs after the attack, not during. Not to mention, I wouldn't give the STR*2 bonus damage either as you're not stepping into their square.
Eric Anondson 05-02-07, 09:33 PM	I'd easily rule otherwise. The stumbling back is part of the attack manuever and the Cleave occurs after the attack, not during.I guess this would an aspect to expect table variation on? Here is why I think extra immediate melee attacks from Cleave would have to occur before the stumble back occurs. Cleave says after dropping a creature, "you get an immediate, extra melee attack". It also says "you cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack." With a spiked slam, the "stumble back", while not necessarily a 5-foot step, is at a minimum 5 feet of travel. So, IMO, if an extra immediate attack from Cleave could be triggered it would need to occur before the traveling that happens by stumbling back. [edit] Spiked slam also explicitly says "[a]fter making this attack, you stumble back". So, in my reading, the stumbling occurs after the attack, not as a part of it.And needless to say, whether or not it is STRx2 or STR bonus x2, I think that the Blood Spiked Charger feat user doesn't lose the ability to threaten until they have actually stumbled back. *shrug*
Mommy was an Orc 05-02-07, 09:55 PM	I guess this would an aspect to expect table variation on? Cleave says after dropping a creature, "you get an immediate, extra melee attack". It also says "you cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack." To make things more clear - I'd easily rule that you can't Cleave. By the way, the action doesn't say you don't threaten after you stumble back. It lists the things that happen after the attack. Not threatening is one of those things...
Eric Anondson 05-02-07, 10:06 PM	To make things more clear - I'd easily rule that you can't Cleave. By the way, the action doesn't say you don't threaten after you stumble back. It lists the things that happen after the attack. Not threatening is one of those things...I'm just on a search for clarity here. :) Is the fact you don't threaten after the spiked slam attack what you base your rule on the Cleave after the spiked slam? Because if so, Cleave does not say you can only make the extra immediate attack on creatures you threaten. You get the extra immediate attack on creatures within your reach. Spiked slam doesn't take away the character's reach, only the ability to threaten targets within the reach.
Mommy was an Orc 05-02-07, 11:09 PM	I'm just on a search for clarity here. :) Is the fact you don't threaten after the spiked slam attack what you base your rule on the Cleave after the spiked slam? Because if so, Cleave does not say you can only make the extra immediate attack on creatures you threaten. You get the extra immediate attack on creatures within your reach. Spiked slam doesn't take away the character's reach, only the ability to threaten targets within the reach. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." If you don't threaten a square, you can't make a melee attack into it...
magebeast 05-03-07, 03:47 AM	"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." If you don't threaten a square, you can't make a melee attack into it... If b implies a, not b does not imply not a. That's a fallacy. I can understand why you'd say that Blood Spike Charger works that way though.
trollbill 05-03-07, 10:01 AM	I'm still trying to figure out why Seeking Ray doesn't have the Electicity descriptor.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 10:39 AM	If b implies a, not b does not imply not a. That's a fallacy. Except that's not the logic being used here. It is if p, then q. q = F. Therefore, not p. If I can make a melee attack into a square, I threaten. I don't threaten. Therefore, I can't make a melee attack.
trollbill 05-03-07, 11:09 AM	Except that's not the logic being used here. It is if p, then q. q = F. Therefore, not p. If I can make a melee attack into a square, I threaten. I don't threaten. Therefore, I can't make a melee attack. I don't see any excusionary rider on 'threaten' the states that the only way you cannot threaten someone is if you cannot attack them. Albeit, I can't think of any examples where both don't apply.
bitznarf 05-03-07, 12:04 PM	I don't see any excusionary rider on 'threaten' the states that the only way you cannot threaten someone is if you cannot attack them. Albeit, I can't think of any examples where both don't apply. I can. From the SRD "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity." Note that even though you don't threaten, you can still make attacks when unarmed, you just have some pretty bad penalties for the most part. Thus a commoner 1 that is unarmed does not threaten squares around him but he can still attack those squares.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 12:41 PM	I can. From the SRD "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity." Note that even though you don't threaten, you can still make attacks when unarmed, you just have some pretty bad penalties for the most part. Thus a commoner 1 that is unarmed does not threaten squares around him but he can still attack those squares. Unarmed Strikes aren't considered melee weapons. They're like melee weapons.
bitznarf 05-03-07, 03:21 PM	Unarmed Strikes aren't considered melee weapons. They're like melee weapons. So? How does this change the fact that it is possible to make a melee attack into a square without threatening that square?
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 03:37 PM	So? How does this change the fact that it is possible to make a melee attack into a square without threatening that square? Because unarmed attacks specifically don't threaten all the time. It is a special exception to the normal rule and how it is an exception is defined. Blood-spiked charger simply stops threatening without any additional language and therefore falls to the if p->q, not q, therefore not p problem.
trollbill 05-03-07, 03:53 PM	Because unarmed attacks specifically don't threaten all the time. It is a special exception to the normal rule and how it is an exception is defined. Blood-spiked charger simply stops threatening without any additional language and therefore falls to the if p->q, not q, therefore not p problem. You are missing the point. The fact that there is an expection proves you can't assume that if you do not threaten you cannot attack. To recap, the rules say that if you cannot attack, you do not threaten. They do not say if you do not threaten, you can't attack. You may choose to make this assumption if you wish, but the moment an exception appears to this assumption, this assumption is proven to be a false assumption. And since we have an exception, the assumption is false.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 04:06 PM	You are missing the point. The fact that there is an expection proves you can't assume that if you do not threaten you cannot attack. To recap, the rules say that if you cannot attack, you do not threaten. They do not say if you do not threaten, you can't attack. You may choose to make this assumption if you wish, but the moment an exception appears to this assumption, this assumption is proven to be a false assumption. And since we have an exception, the assumption is false. I'm not missing the point at all. Your logic doesn't work. A special exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. If you can attack, you threaten. There's a special exception defined for a specific 'like a' melee weapon. And that special exception says that despite the rule, here's what this specific 'like a' melee weapon can do. That doesn't give another weapon a pass unless the rules specifically state that it does. Which Blood Spiked Charger does not.
trollbill 05-03-07, 04:24 PM	I'm not missing the point at all. Your logic doesn't work. A special exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. If you can attack, you threaten. There's a special exception defined for a specific 'like a' melee weapon. And that special exception says that despite the rule, here's what this specific 'like a' melee weapon can do. That doesn't give another weapon a pass unless the rules specifically state that it does. Which Blood Spiked Charger does not. But we aren't talking about a rule because the rules don't say that if you do not threaten someone you cannot attack them. They say the reverse. You are making an assumption that this means the reverse, but there is no such rule. Yes, exceptions do no disprove rules, but they do disprove assumptions to those rules. Sorry, but you are the one using the bad logic here. The rules say: If not A (where A is the ability to attack into a square) then not B (where B is the ability to threaten). No where is the rules of logic does it state that: (If not A, then not B) then (if not B then not A). You are making a somewhat deductive argument that this is so, and I can see where this might sway your opinion on the matter, but it is not a logical proof because the moment an exception to this crops up, it proves the assumption false. I suppose to be technically accurate, this doesn't disprove your assumption but it does disproved your logical proof for the assumption.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 04:33 PM	The rules say: If not A (where A is the ability to attack into a square) then not B (where B is the ability to threaten). No where is the rules of logic does it state that: (If not A, then not B) then (if not B then not A). You are making a somewhat deductive argument that this is so, and I can see where this might sway your opinion on the matter, but it is not a logical proof because the moment an exception to this crops up, it proves the assumption false. Those aren't the rules... They say if A(can make a melee attack), then B(you threaten). You don't threaten. Not B. Therefore, Not A. That's why a special exception to A doesn't invalidate anything. It isn't A.
trollbill 05-03-07, 04:43 PM	Those aren't the rules... They say if A(can make a melee attack), then B(you threaten). You don't threaten. Not B. Therefore, Not A. That's why a special exception to A doesn't invalidate anything. It isn't A. The rules of logic state: [(if A, then B) then (if not A, then not B)]. They say nothing about [(if A, then B) then (if not B, then not A)]. It is not possible to have Not A and B exist at the same time. That makes the first rule a true rule. It is, however, possible to have Not B and A at the same time, and the above example proves it. Ergo, that makes it a false rule.
ragecage79 05-03-07, 04:44 PM	I'm not missing the point at all. Your logic doesn't work. A special exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. If you can attack, you threaten. There's a special exception defined for a specific 'like a' melee weapon. And that special exception says that despite the rule, here's what this specific 'like a' melee weapon can do. That doesn't give another weapon a pass unless the rules specifically state that it does. Which Blood Spiked Charger does not. I think what trollbill, Eric and the others are getting at, and I'm inclined to agree with them, is that by showing that there are exceptions you show that the logic path you have set out (p->q, not q, therefore not p) is not universally sound. This is what you originally said: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." If you don't threaten a square, you can't make a melee attack into it... This is not an exclusionary statement like "all dogs are animals". Which is the only way your logical reasoning would work. As was shown by bitznarf, you can make a melee attack into a square that you do not threaten in at least one instance. That being said, nowhere in the Cleave feat does it say that you must threaten, only that the target be within reach. A monk could cleave with their unarmed strike (and unarmed strike is a Power Attackable weapon, lest we bring up that argument). So, assuming you say that the "do not threaten any squares" part of Blood Spiked Charger comes into play immediately after the attack, it does not exclude the opportunity for a Cleave attack. The fact that Cleave specifically states that you cannot move in between the first attack and the cleave attack leaves some room for interpretation. p->usually q not q, but may still be p -AJ
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 05:02 PM	IThis is not an exclusionary statement like "all dogs are animals". Except they did make a statement like that - you threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack. Then they defined specific exceptions to the rule. Here's a way of looking at it: Killing is Murder. Specific Exception: Killing in Self-Defense is not Murder. Example: Person A was not murdered. Nor was he killed in self-defense. What is the status of Person A? Unless there is a specific exception being defined that we are unaware of, we know just one thing, despite the oddness of the 2nd sentence(which is what is tripping the three of you up) - he was not killed.
ragecage79 05-03-07, 05:20 PM	Except they did make a statement like that - you threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack. Then they defined specific exceptions to the rule. This is not the same as saying "you can only make a melee attack into a square which you threaten" which is how you are interpreting it. If it does say that sentence somewhere (or the logical equivalent) and I missed it, I'd be happy to concede the point.
trollbill 05-03-07, 05:29 PM	Except they did make a statement like that - you threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack. Then they defined specific exceptions to the rule. Here's a way of looking at it: Killing is Murder. Specific Exception: Killing in Self-Defense is not Murder. Example: Person A was not murdered. Nor was he killed in self-defense. What is the status of Person A? Unless there is a specific exception being defined that we are unaware of, we know just one thing, despite the oddness of the 2nd sentence(which is what is tripping the three of you up) - he was not killed. That logic only works if that's what the rules actually said. But that isn't what they actually said. You reversed what they said and assumed the same rules of logic applied when you reversed it, and they don't. But I am not going to continue beating my head against a brick wall by repeating the rules of logic over and over again. If you don't get it by now, I can't help you. So I will respectfully bow out of this argument. :tiphat:
bitznarf 05-03-07, 05:38 PM	This is not the same as saying "you can only make a melee attack into a square which you threaten" which is how you are interpreting it. If it does say that sentence somewhere (or the logical equivalent) and I missed it, I'd be happy to concede the point. Exactly. And that trollbill said.
Howie23 05-03-07, 05:46 PM	The rules of logic state: [(if A, then B) then (if not A, then not B)]. And thus, in a flash, all whales ceased to exist upon hearing "If you are a fish, you live in water." :) David
ragecage79 05-03-07, 06:01 PM	And thus, in a flash, all whales ceased to exist upon hearing "If you are a fish, you live in water." :) David That's why they sound so sad. :weep: All hijacking aside, I think that even without cleave, the STR*2 bonus could leave some tables in a serious hurt box if one baddie is taking out an average of one PC a round. I also do not think that is how the feat is meant to work.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 06:15 PM	That logic only works if that's what the rules actually said. But that isn't what they actually said. PHB Glossary page 314: "Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without leaving your current space." Is that good enough for you?
Timlagor 05-03-07, 06:37 PM	The rules of logic state: [(if A, then B) then (if not A, then not B)]. They say nothing about [(if A, then B) then (if not B, then not A)]. It is not possible to have Not A and B exist at the same time. That makes the first rule a true rule. It is, however, possible to have Not B and A at the same time, and the above example proves it. Ergo, that makes it a false rule. You are simply wrong in your assertion. (if A then B) -> (if not B then not A) It is perfectly possible to have B without A. Your first line is wrong and the rest follows from there.
ragecage79 05-03-07, 06:42 PM	PHB Glossary page 314: "Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without leaving your current space." Is that good enough for you? This still does not say that in order to make a melee attack, you must threaten. It merely defines the term threaten and allows that if you threaten then you are able to make a melee attack. That is the point that we are making. There are instances where you can make a melee attack yet you do not threaten the target of the attack, such as an unarmed strike.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 06:53 PM	This still does not say that in order to make a melee attack, you must threaten. It merely defines the term threaten and allows that if you threaten then you are able to make a melee attack. That is the point that we are making. There are instances where you can make a melee attack yet you do not threaten the target of the attack, such as an unarmed strike. So you're honestly saying that if someone lacks the ability to make a melee attack, he's able to make a melee attack without needing any additional rules to do it? Please...
ragecage79 05-03-07, 06:53 PM	You are simply wrong in your assertion. (if A then B) -> (if not B then not A) It is perfectly possible to have B without A. Your first line is wrong and the rest follows from there. This is correct. Example: Assuming there is a statement that says all dogs are animals. If dog then animal -> if not animal then not dog, but there are many animals that are not dogs Mommy's assumption: All melee attacks must be against threatened targets. If melee attack -> threatened, if not threatened then no melee attack, this would be true. However there is no statement in the rules that I know of that says all melee attacks must be against threatened targets. In fact, we have found at least one example to the contrary. It is not a dependable logic equation if there are instances where it is not true. I think that is the point trollbill is trying to make, even though he was mistaken in his conclusion. -AJ
ragecage79 05-03-07, 06:57 PM	So you're honestly saying that if someone lacks the ability to make a melee attack, he's able to make a melee attack without needing any additional rules to do it? Please... No, I'm saying that you are making a false logical connection between threatening a target and being able to make a melee attack. I'm also saying that there are additional rules that support being able to make the melee attack in the Cleave feat description. It says that you can make an immediate attack against a foe that is within reach. It seems pretty explicit to me.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 07:09 PM	No, I'm saying that you are making a false logical connection between threatening a target and being able to make a melee attack. I'm also saying that there are additional rules that support being able to make the melee attack in the Cleave feat description. It says that you can make an immediate attack against a foe that is within reach. It seems pretty explicit to me. If you can't make a melee attack without leaving your current space, there are no foes within reach... So, no, you can't Cleave against anything.
bitznarf 05-03-07, 07:13 PM	If you can't make a melee attack without leaving your current space, there are no foes within reach... So, no, you can't Cleave against anything. He can cleave against anything within reach. BSC doesn't change your reach.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 07:16 PM	He can cleave against anything within reach. Combat Brute doesn't change your reach. If you don't threaten, you have no ability to attack opponents without leaving your current space. This is defined in PHB Glossary. There are exceptions - unarmed strike has a specific set of rules for how it works. But that's not BSC. So there are no opponents within reach.
bitznarf 05-03-07, 07:27 PM	If you don't threaten, you have no ability to attack opponents without leaving your current space. You have yet to prove this. You can prove that you can't attack you don't threaten, you have yet to prove that if you don't threaten you can't attack. Besides which, BSC doesn't change your reach. Reach is a specific stat. Not a general idea.
ragecage79 05-03-07, 07:36 PM	If you don't threaten, you have no ability to attack opponents without leaving your current space. This is defined in PHB Glossary. There are exceptions - unarmed strike has a specific set of rules for how it works. But that's not BSC. So there are no opponents within reach. All arguments of reach aside, I do think that the language of BSC implies that the "do not threaten until the start of your next turn" condition comes into play after you stumble backwards as it is stated immediately following the "stumble back" condition. The Cleave feat says that you make an immediate attack from where you are after the first attack. For instance, if a spring attacker or a dervish made a cleave attack they would make it from the place where the first attack was made, not from where they ended the action.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 08:50 PM	You have yet to prove this. You can prove that you can't attack you don't threaten, you have yet to prove that if you don't threaten you can't attack. Besides which, BSC doesn't change your reach. Reach is a specific stat. Not a general idea. PHB Glossary page 314. Threaten is the ability to make a melee attack where you are. If you can't make a melee attack where you are, you in effect don't have a Reach stat. That there are specific exceptions to this does not mean it isn't a rule.
bitznarf 05-03-07, 09:09 PM	PHB Glossary page 314. Threaten is the ability to make a melee attack where you are. If you can't make a melee attack where you are, you in effect don't have a Reach stat. That there are specific exceptions to this does not mean it isn't a rule. First: please prove the "don't threaten = can't attack" before you claim it as fact. We've shown how your logic is flawed. Second: You're saying that until a character has taken their first action in combat, they don't have a reach stat? Please show me where it says this in the rules.
ragecage79 05-03-07, 09:18 PM	PHB Glossary page 314. Threaten is the ability to make a melee attack where you are. If you can't make a melee attack where you are, you in effect don't have a Reach stat. That there are specific exceptions to this does not mean it isn't a rule. I've already made my point and as bitznarf said, I don't feel you've properly responded to it. However, I do think that regardless of where this argument is headed, there has been enough evidence on either side to establish that there will be significant table variance. The point still remains that if you adopt the STR*2 stance on BSC, the feat is ripe for abuse on either side of the PC/NPC spectrum, thread derailment aside. A moderately optimized strength build could potentially put up ridiculous amounts of damage at a dangerously low APL. We're talking near the level of Leap Attack. Either it's an oversight that should be addressed in an errata or it's an overpowered feat that should be reconsidered for closure by the circle.
Mommy was an Orc 05-03-07, 09:22 PM	First: please prove the "don't threaten = can't attack" before you claim it as fact. We've shown how your logic is flawed. :rolleyes: Again. PHB page 314.
KarmaInferno 05-03-07, 11:41 PM	When you grapple, you don't threaten anyone. Yet you can still make attacks. You do not threaten when using a whip. Clearly, however, you can make melee attacks with it. As mentioned, someone without the feat Improved Unarmed Strike does not threaten with his fists, but can still attack with them. -karma
bitznarf 05-03-07, 11:50 PM	:rolleyes: Again. PHB page 314. Well, if you want to go in circles lets at least be efficient about it. This still does not say that in order to make a melee attack, you must threaten. It merely defines the term threaten and allows that if you threaten then you are able to make a melee attack. That is the point that we are making. There are instances where you can make a melee attack yet you do not threaten the target of the attack, such as an unarmed strike. There. Now I can just edit and copy this text.
trollbill 05-04-07, 10:10 AM	You are simply wrong in your assertion. (if A then B) -> (if not B then not A) It is perfectly possible to have B without A. Your first line is wrong and the rest follows from there. Okay, you're right. I didn't explain that correctly. Been too long since I had a logic class. It still doesn't change the fact that a statement that says "you only threaten a square you can make a melee attack into" only logically infers: You do not threaten a square if you can't make a melee attack If you threaten a square, then you can make a melee attack into it It makes no logical inference as to the state of "you can/can't make a melee attack" if the condition is "you do not threaten." Now that I have (I hope) correctly explained what I was trying to say, I will now let you gentlemen get back to arguing in circles. :tiphat:
magebeast 05-04-07, 12:45 PM	Let's try something new! If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. Now, if I can't drive my car, does it necessarily follow that I don't have my keys ? Or could my battery be dead? Or perhaps some jerk came along and drained all the oil out of my car. Who knows! EDIT: I thought of something even better. Mommy, are blind creatures capable of the attack option in your estimation?
Timlagor 05-04-07, 05:36 PM	No it immediately follows that if not-'you can't drive your car' (you can drive your car) then you don't not have your keys (you have your keys)
Mommy was an Orc 05-04-07, 06:49 PM	EDIT: I thought of something even better. Mommy, are blind creatures capable of the attack option in your estimation? Yes. Of course. Same exact thing as unarmed attack. They don't threaten, but the rules explain how to resolve them attacking. Same thing goes for the whip, grappling, etc... That's not true for BSC. Which means we use the rule - the ability to threaten is the ability to make melee attacks - as they don't threaten, they don't have the ability to make melee attacks.
magebeast 05-04-07, 07:16 PM	That's not true for BSC. Which means we use the rule - the ability to threaten is the ability to make melee attacks - as they don't threaten, they don't have the ability to make melee attacks. Your insistence seriously boggles my mind.
bitznarf 05-04-07, 07:34 PM	Yes. Of course. Same exact thing as unarmed attack. They don't threaten, but the rules explain how to resolve them attacking. Same thing goes for the whip, grappling, etc... That's not true for BSC. Which means we use the rule - the ability to threaten is the ability to make melee attacks - as they don't threaten, they don't have the ability to make melee attacks. You're reading the glossary wrong. It doesn't say that threatening and the ability to make melee attacks are interchangeable as terms. The logic that has been show many times proves your conclusion wrong.
Eric Anondson 05-04-07, 08:05 PM	That's not true for BSC. Which means we use the rule - the ability to threaten is the ability to make melee attacks - as they don't threaten, they don't have the ability to make melee attacks.I think there are two different reasons why Cleave should be triggered after dropping someone with a spiked slam. First, I believe that Cleave's immediate extra attack can be used on any target within reach. BSC doesn't remove reach, only the abilith to threaten those within reach. Second, even if the loss of ability to threaten did exclude activation of Cleave, I believe that a Cleave's immediate extra attack activates before the movement of "stagger back", like all immediate extra attacks from the Cleave feat (two examples, Dervishes and Spring Attacking). I believe it is the "stagger back" that induces the loss of ability to threaten, Cleaves' extra immediate attack comes before any movement and thus before the loss of ability to threaten.
ragecage79 05-04-07, 08:05 PM	You're reading the glossary wrong. It doesn't say that threatening and the ability to make melee attacks are interchangeable as terms. The logic that has been show many times proves your conclusion wrong. Ditto. In fact, if anything the entry for a whip makes a clear distinction between the two. "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack." This is yet another instance where you can attack a square that you do not threaten.
Mommy was an Orc 05-04-07, 08:10 PM	you only threaten a square you can make a melee attack into" Which would be relevant if the rules actually said that...
Mommy was an Orc 05-04-07, 08:11 PM	Your insistence seriously boggles my mind. If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. Now, if I can't drive my car, does it necessarily follow that I don't have my keys ? Or could my battery be dead? Or perhaps some jerk came along and drained all the oil out of my car. Who knows! You just argued here that if A, then B. B. If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. I can't drive my car. Why can't I drive my car? Who knows! Except I'm arguing that if A, then B. Not B. Therefore it does mean Not A. And I spelled this out for you before... i.e. If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. I can drive my car. Therefore, I must have my keys. If I have the ability to make melee attacks, I threaten(except in certain specifically defined circumstances - unarmed strike, whip, blind, etc... - note, BSC not defined). I don't threaten nor is it one of the defined circumstances. Therefore, I must not be able to make melee attacks.
ragecage79 05-04-07, 08:20 PM	You just argued here that if A, then B. B. If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. I can't drive my car. Why can't I drive my car? Who knows! Except I'm arguing that if A, then B. Not B. Therefore it does mean Not A. And I spelled this out for you before... i.e. If I don't have my keys, I can't drive my car. I can drive my car. Therefore, I must have my keys. If I have the ability to make melee attacks, I threaten(except in certain specifically defined circumstances - unarmed strike, whip, blind, etc... - note, BSC not defined). I don't threaten nor is it one of the defined circumstances. Therefore, I must not be able to make melee attacks. The point remains that you have not established if A then B as a logically true statement, thus your logic is based on a false assumption. You can demonstrate it with as many examples as you want. I see the inference you are trying to make, but you can't make it without a true assumption to base it on. There have been many examples in this thread already that have shown that you do not always need to threaten a square to attack it. That makes the assumption you are basing your inference on a false one.
Samwise 05-04-07, 08:46 PM	Which would be relevant if the rules actually said that... Player's Handbook, page 137, Attacks of Opportunity Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. The rules actually do say that. It is not merely relevant, it is essential. Threatening squares is required to make Attacks of Opportunity, not to make Melee Attacks in general. Nowhere in the rules on melee attacks does it say anything about threatening squares. It is relevant only for making AoOs. When you do not threaten any squares, you can not make attacks of opportunity. You can still make all the melee attacks you are normally entitled to by the action you are taking. (Which is typically none.) You are relying too much on the glossary and not reading the actual rules where these terms are relevant.
Mommy was an Orc 05-04-07, 09:49 PM	Nowhere in the rules on melee attacks does it say anything about threatening squares. It is relevant only for making AoOs. Melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space as opposed to ranged combat. Hmm, so the rules do talk about it in the very definition of what melee is - without reference to AoOs. And they cross-reference. Care to try again?
Samwise 05-04-07, 10:07 PM	Hmm, so the rules do talk about it in the very definition of what melee is - without reference to AoOs. And they cross-reference. Care to try again? That is about the range of melee combat, not any requirement to make melee attacks. Look right under that: melee attack: A physical attack suitable for close combat. It says nothing about having to threaten the square to be able to make the attack. You keep reading just the glossary without reading the rules. If you refuse to consider the actual rules text, you will obviously wind up with a confused sense of the rules. Page 139: Attack Making an attack is a standard action. Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in the descriptions in Chapter 7: Equipment. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet). The word "threaten" appears nowhere in that. It appears in only one place in the entire section on Attack from there until the next section, Cast A Spell, begins on page 140. The context there is clear: Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: (second sentence) Two character are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other either threatens the other. Threatening is only relevant to providing a modifier for ranged attacks. It defines when a melee exists, which is what that ranged modifier is based on. It does not create or limit melee attacks in any way. It is the ability to make a melee that defines when you threaten. Care to read the actual rules and not just the glossary entries?
Falanin 05-05-07, 08:20 AM	Mommy, I think I see where you are getting your logic confused. PHB Glossary page 314. Threaten is the ability to make a melee attack where you are. If you can't make a melee attack where you are, you in effect don't have a Reach stat. That there are specific exceptions to this does not mean it isn't a rule. Using this definition, the paragraph states what is REQUIRED to "threaten", not what "threaten" implies. The causal link is more clear using Samwise's quote: Player's Handbook, page 137, Attacks of Opportunity Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Both of these statements claim that ability to make a melee attack into a square causes that square to be threatened, NOT the other way around. Using your original terminology: If B, then A. This means that A: Threatening, is a sufficient proof of B: The ability to melee attack the "threatened" square. However, the absence of sufficient proof does not necessarily prove the negative. Your argument is the same as trying to prove that I am not breathing, therefore I am dead. Unfortunately, being dead is what's causing me to not breathe, not the other way around. The state of not breathing still leaves me able to be holding my breath or choking rather than dead. For exactly the same reason, the state of not threatening still leaves you able to attack in melee, such as with a whip, while unarmed, or with an ability such as Cleave. The ability to melee attack may or may not generate threatened squares, but whenever you have threatened squares, you have the ability to melee attack. Hope this helps, Jonathan Nank
copper_wyrmling 05-06-07, 02:32 AM	Both of these statements claim that ability to make a melee attack into a square causes that square to be threatened, NOT the other way around. Using your original terminology: If B, then A. This means that A: Threatening, is a sufficient proof of B: The ability to melee attack the "threatened" square. *sigh* You have your logic around the wrong way. I'm sure you meant it correctly, but you stated it wrong. You stated what you wanted to say correctly later, when you said: The ability to melee attack may or may not generate threatened squares, but whenever you have threatened squares, you have the ability to melee attack. In other words, A (threatening) implies B (ability to melee attack the threatened square), A => B, the opposite to what you said above. (if B, then A) means that B holding implies that A holds. The contrapositive of that is that if A is false, then B cannot hold. It does NOT mean that A is a sufficient proof of B (it's necessary, not sufficient). Using your example... If (I am breathing) then (I am alive) Thus, if (I am not alive) then (I am not breathing) If (I can attack the square in melee) then (I threaten the square) If (I do not threaten the square) then (I cannot attack the square in melee) I think MwaO's chain of logic is correct. If you want to attack his argument, you need to attack his premise, i.e. that "you threaten all squares into which you can make an attack, even when it is not your action" means that "if you can make attacks into a square, then you threaten it". The easiest reasonable alternative I can see to his position is the argument that the PHB quote should be interpreted not as: "Even when it is not your action, you threaten all squares into which you could normally attack" but instead as "You threaten a square if (a) you could make an attack into it, and (b) you could make that attack even if it wasn't your action at the time". The second definition seems to accord more closely with the common understanding of "threatened squares" as "squares where you can take an AoO if someone performs a provoking action in them". It could be better worded though.
Samwise 05-06-07, 03:09 AM	The easiest reasonable alternative I can see to his position is the argument that the PHB quote should be interpreted not as: "Even when it is not your action, you threaten all squares into which you could normally attack" but instead as "You threaten a square if (a) you could make an attack into it, and (b) you could make that attack even if it wasn't your action at the time". The second definition seems to accord more closely with the common understanding of "threatened squares" as "squares where you can take an AoO if someone performs a provoking action in them". It could be better worded though. What part of the rules that I quoted doesn't make that clear? If (you can make a melee attack into a square) (and certain exemptions do not apply) then you (threaten that square). If (you threaten a square) and (certain exemptions do not apply) then (you may make AoO's) Melee -> Threaten -> AoO That is the hierarchy. That is the direction in which the subjects control and limit each other, never the reverse. You can never take an AoO when you do not threaten a square. You can never a threaten a square if you can not make a melee attack into it. There are things that prevent you from taking an AoO when you threaten a square. They don't stop you from threatening the square, as you can still make a melee attack into those squares. There are things the prevent you from threatening a square when you can make a melee attack into them. They don't stop you from being able to make a melee attack into those squares. Also critical, being able to make a melee attack into a square on your turn with the number of melee attacks you can make on your turn base on the type of action you are doing. If you do a full move you could make a melee attack into any square along the way, you just can't make any because of the type of action you are taking. You do however threaten every square you pass, and so you can make an AoO into any of them if provoked. (Such as someone trying to grapple you as you move past, provoking an AoO from you.) If the glossary doesn't sufficiently reflect this very simple explanation of the rules, then the glossary is poorly worded. That does not change the rules in the body of the book, and they are quite clear.
szwanger 05-07-07, 02:14 PM	Mommy, are blind creatures capable of the attack option in your estimation? Yes. Of course. Same exact thing as unarmed attack. They don't threaten, but the rules explain how to resolve them attacking. The rules don't say that blind creatures don't threaten. Under "Total Concealment" (PHB p. 152): --A blind creature can attack into a square. --A blind creature can't take AOOs. The distinction is important because blind creatures can flank and can provide a flank.
Samwise 05-07-07, 02:36 PM	The rules don't say that blind creatures don't threaten. Under "Total Concealment" (PHB p. 152): --A blind creature can attack into a square. --A blind creature can't take AOOs. The distinction is important because blind creatures can flank and can provide a flank. This was one of several critical factors in my analysis, and why it should be obvious that threatening does not control when you can make melee attacks.
Mommy was an Orc 05-07-07, 03:42 PM	Threatening is only relevant to providing a modifier for ranged attacks. It defines when a melee exists, which is what that ranged modifier is based on. It does not create or limit melee attacks in any way. It is the ability to make a melee that defines when you threaten. Care to read the actual rules and not just the glossary entries? Why would I have to read the rules more closely when you're going to argue my position for me, contradict yourself at the same time, and state the glossary are not rules. I doubt you'd get any WotC game designers to agree with you on that last one. If you have the ability to make a melee(p), then you threaten(q) You don't threaten(not q) Therefore you don't have the ability to make a melee(not p)
Samwise 05-07-07, 04:14 PM	Why would I have to read the rules more closely when you're going to argue my position for me, contradict yourself at the same time, and state the glossary are not rules. I haven't argued your position at all, I've just pointed out the flaws in it. Nor have I contradicted myself anywhere. If I have, feel free to show it. As for the glossary being rules, you are the one arguing that you don't need to read the text, merely the glossary. I doubt you'd get any WotC game designer to agree to that. I doubt you'd get any WotC game designers to agree with you on that last one. Actually, I'm confident that I would. They've made it clear what the precedence of rules is between books, and they've made it clear that full text trumps tables. In this case, the clear and explicit text of the rules is definitely superior to a short blurb in the glossary. If you have the ability to make a melee(p), then you threaten(q) You don't threaten(not q) Therefore you don't have the ability to make a melee(not p) And that is flawed logic, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. p then q does not equal not q then not p No matter how many times you assert it, you will not make that a true statement. Just as this is wrong: RPGA Member then Herald Level Member Not Herald Level Member then Not RPGA Member Or, for something directly in the game: BAB +6 then Iterative Attacks Not Iterative Attacks Then Not BAB +6 So are you wrong in asserting that when you do not threaten you do not have the ability to make a melee attack. Y ou have two clear examples of this presented to you: when you are unarmed you do not threaten but can make melee attacks, and when you are grappled you do not threaten but can make melee attacks. The rules are quite clear, as is the logic.
KarmaInferno 05-07-07, 05:31 PM	In order to threaten, you must be able to make a melee attack. The opposite is not always true, however. You can make a melee attack when you don't threaten. Multiple examples of this have been presented. MwaO, the text you keep quoting defines when you can threaten, not when you can make a melee attack. You keep doggedly hanging on to that one line of text, the line of text that everyone else here so far has been saying that you have been interpreting wrong. Everything else presented has pointed to the opposite of your view. -karma
Timlagor 05-12-07, 09:19 PM	Specific exceptions to a rule do not make a rule less true in general. the game is littered with specific exceptions to genuine rules.
Timlagor 05-12-07, 09:27 PM	And that is flawed logic, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. p then q does not equal not q then not p No matter how many times you assert it, you will not make that a true statement. How can you write this stuff? Your assertion above is wrong. Completely and utterly. How can you think otherwise? Premise: P implies Q Correct Conclusion: Not Q implies Not P False Conclusion: Not P implies Not Q Just as this is wrong: RPGA Member then Herald Level Member Not Herald Level Member then Not RPGA Member If your premise means: "Every RPGA member is a Herald Level Member" Then it must be true that: "Someone who is not a Herald Level Member is not an RPGA member". (if they were an RPGA member then they would be a Herald Level member) Or, for something directly in the game: BAB +6 then Iterative Attacks Not Iterative Attacks Then Not BAB +6 So you can have BAB +6 and not be able to make Iterative attacks? - yes if you count natural weapons. Therefore the first line is wrong and the argument is irrelevant.
Samwise 05-12-07, 10:22 PM	Specific exceptions to a rule do not make a rule less true in general. the game is littered with specific exceptions to genuine rules. That's right. That's why you don't always threaten squares you can melee attack into, and why you can't always take AoOs into squares you threaten. How can you write this stuff? Your assertion above is wrong. Completely and utterly. How can you think otherwise? Reported. Premise: P implies Q Correct Conclusion: Not Q implies Not P False Conclusion: Not P implies Not Q I guess you don't know what a necessary cause is. If P is necessary for Q, then whenever you have Q you will have P. P does not imply that Q must be present. You are using a completely improper causality. If your premise means: "Every RPGA member is a Herald Level Member" Then it must be true that: "Someone who is not a Herald Level Member is not an RPGA member". (if they were an RPGA member then they would be a Herald Level member) No, my premise is that you must be a general RPGA member in order to be a Herald Level RPGA member. Since it is possible to be a general RPGA member without being a Herald Level RPGA member, but it is impossible to be a Herald Level RPGA member without being a Herald level member, then my example is absolutely correct in demonstrating the relationship between melee attacks and threatening squares. So you can have BAB +6 and not be able to make Iterative attacks? - yes if you count natural weapons. Therefore the first line is wrong and the argument is irrelevant. Again, you are not reading the structure provided. My first line is not wrong. You must have a BAB of +6 or greater in order to make iterative attacks. However, the inability to make iterative attacks does not mean your BAB is not +6 or greater. Again, this example properly demonstrates the same relationship between two rules.
Fakegoatee 05-12-07, 11:02 PM	I thought you might like some insights from a professional logician. So here goes: We should distinguish these three claims from one another: A. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. B. You threaten only squares into which you can make a melee attack. C. You threaten all and only squares into which you can make a melee attack. I'll discuss these one by one. A. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. This is what the PHB main text says, and it leaves it open whether you threaten any squares into which you can't make a melee attack. But it does not leave it open whether you can make a melee attack into a square you don't threaten. Making a melee attack into a square you don't threaten is impossible, according to A. Presumably, the impossibility here is conceptual. Making a melee attack into a square you don't threaten would be like being a married bachelor. A is equivalent to saying that the set of squares into which you can make a melee attack is a subset of or equal to the set of squares you threaten. B. You threaten only squares into which you can make a melee attack. This, which is not what the main PHB text says, leaves open the possibility of making melee attacks into squares you don't threaten. It does not leave open the possibility of threatening a square into which you can't attack. B is equivalent to saying that the set of squares you threaten is a subset of or equal to the set of squares into which you can make a melee attack. C. You threaten all and only squares into which you can make a melee attack. C is the conjunction of A and B. It says that the squares you threaten and the squares into which you can make a melee attack are exactly the same squares. Given C, its impossible to make a melee attack into a square you don't threaten, and it's impossible to threaten a square into which you can't make a melee attack. Now's where the fun starts. C is what the glossary says, given the assumption that glossary gives a definition. (And what else would it give?) That's because a good definition has to give necessary and sufficient conditions, and only C does that. So, read strictly, the glossary says more than the main text. The main text does not say whether or not you threaten squares into which you can't make a melee attack. The glossary says you don't threaten them. (Both the text and the glossary say it's impossible to make a melee attack into a square you don't threaten.) All that said, there's a widely accepted convention we should also take into account. When a new term is introduced and defined, writers will often say 'All Fs are Gs', when they intend to be defining what the Gs are. In those circumstances, it is proper to interpret that 'all' as 'all and only'. There is thus a case to be made for interpreting A as meaning the same as C. That is, you can make the case that the PHB text means to be saying that you threaten all and only the squares into which you can make a melee attack.
magebeast 05-13-07, 12:26 AM	stuff Yes, but what does this say about the assertion that if you don't threaten, you can't attack?
JamesMaissen 05-13-07, 01:26 AM	"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." If you don't threaten a square, you can't make a melee attack into it... But this isn't the real case now is it? A PC can indeed make melee attacks but not threaten the squares in which they can make those attacks. Examples abound with (nonimproved) unarmed strikes, whips and the like. The glossary entries are not hard and fast definitions but rather vague outlines. Read through the glossary and you will see things that are not always correct. (For example look under the glossary for 'reach weapon' and tell me that this is an exact definition.. and thus reach weapons always give 10' reach regardless of the natural reach of the creature in question, etc). Heck read through the general rules and you will see the same even (for example that you cannot take more than one AOO in a round). The way the rules are written do not support this kind of reading. Plain and simple. Trying to apply them is akin to putting a square peg through a round hole. Enough force and it goes through, but that doesn't self-validate. -James
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:06 AM	*sigh* You have your logic around the wrong way. I'm sure you meant it correctly, but you stated it wrong. You stated what you wanted to say correctly later, when you said: In other words, A (threatening) implies B (ability to melee attack the threatened square), A => B, the opposite to what you said above. (if B, then A) means that B holding implies that A holds. The contrapositive of that is that if A is false, then B cannot hold. It does NOT mean that A is a sufficient proof of B (it's necessary, not sufficient). Using your example... If (I am breathing) then (I am alive) Thus, if (I am not alive) then (I am not breathing) Your logic is still wrong. You even had a valid example. While it is true that if you are breathing then you are alive, the two are not logically connected. They are factually connected. If A is true Then B must also be true, does not necessarily mean in any given case that if B is true then A is true, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY FIND SOME CASES where it is true. You were even given specific cases regarding melee attacks against creatures whom you DO NOT threaten. What's the deal?
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:14 AM	Yes, but what does this say about the assertion that if you don't threaten, you can't attack? Nothing. It is false to assume that if you don't threaten, you can't attack.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:17 AM	Except they did make a statement like that - you threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack. Then they defined specific exceptions to the rule. Here's a way of looking at it: Killing is Murder. Specific Exception: Killing in Self-Defense is not Murder. Very specifically: You are discussing the definitions of murder and the definitions of threaten. Neither says anything about killing (which has far more "exceptions" than simply self-defense) or attacking.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:19 AM	But this isn't the real case now is it? A PC can indeed make melee attacks but not threaten the squares in which they can make those attacks. Examples abound with (nonimproved) unarmed strikes, whips and the like. Yes, the definition of "threaten" does not define "attack". The definition of "attack" defines threaten.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:20 AM	I thought you might like some insights from a professional logician. So here goes: We should distinguish these three claims from one another: A. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. B. You threaten only squares into which you can make a melee attack. C. You threaten all and only squares into which you can make a melee attack. I'll discuss these one by one. None of these tell you what constitutes a melee attack.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:35 AM	Ok, you guys have been really silly about this for too long. Here's the link to a logic site and the truth tables involved: http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Logic/Logic12.htm 22. Converse The implication p implies q has a converse statement q implies p. These two implications do not have the same meaning. For example, the implication If she is inside the house, then she cannot see the moon does not have the same meaning as its converse statement If she cannot see the moon, then she is inside the house. ================================AND---------------- 25. Law of Detachment Suppose that the statements p and p implies q are both true. Then we may write: p and (p implies q). By the definition of the implication, this is: p and (not-p or q). By the distributive law, we now have: (p and not-p) or (p and q). By the law of contradiction p and not-p is false, so p and q must be true. This shows we may conclude that q is true, because we have already supposed that p is true. We may summarize this result as follows: From p and (p implies q) we conclude q. This is called the law of detachment. For example, let p = This machine is a bicycle q = This machine has two wheels. Then p implies q = If this machine is a bicycle, then it has two wheels. If p is true and p implies q is always true, then we conclude that q is always true. In other words we conclude: This machine has two wheels. 26. Law of Detachment not Usable Suppose that the statements p implies q and q are both true. Then we cannot conclude anything new because the law of detachment cannot be used. For example, suppose we have the statements If the animal has eaten poisoned food, then it is dead (p implies q) and The animal is dead (q). We cannot conclude that the animal has eaten poisoned food; it may have died from another cause.
trollbill 05-13-07, 11:59 AM	Nothing. It is false to assume that if you don't threaten, you can't attack. Which is exactly what we have been trying to tell Mommy and Timlagor all along. The condition of "not threatened" makes no statement (one way or the other) as to the condition of "can/can't attack."
copper_wyrmling 05-13-07, 02:01 PM	Which is exactly what we have been trying to tell Mommy and Timlagor all along. The condition of "not threatened" makes no statement (one way or the other) as to the condition of "can/can't attack." Grrrr. MwaO and Timlagor are not SAYING that p=>q means q=>p (which is the fallacy Zanzibax covered, assuming a statement is the same as its converse). They are saying that p=>q means (not q)=>(not p), which is correct. (If the animal has eaten poisoned food, then it is dead) is equivalent to (If the animal is not dead, then it has not eaten poisoned food) This is called the contrapositive statement, and is something entirely different to the converse statement (which would be "if the animal is dead, then it has eaten poisoned food", and is false in this case). If you accept that the rules say "If you can make a melee attack into a square, then you threaten that square" Then it inevitably follows that "If you do not threaten that square, you cannot make a melee attack into it" (because if you could make a melee attack into it, you would threaten, and you know that you don't threaten) I personally think that the rules should probably be read as "if you can make a melee attack into a square even when it is not your action, then you threaten that square". In that case, the first statement ("if you can make a melee attack into a square, then you threaten it") is false (you might be able to make a melee attack into a square, but couldn't do so if it wasn't your action, and then you wouldn't threaten), and so its contrapositive is also false. That doesn't mean that the equivalency between a statement and its contrapositive doesn't hold. You can attack MwaO's argument, but you have to attack the premise, not the chain of logic (and several people have done that, which is good). It's really quite sad to see people confusing the converse with the contrapositive. To try to explain it more simply... if when P is true, then Q is always true, then if you find a case experimentally where Q is false, then obviously P must also be false, because if it was true, Q would be true and you would have a contradiction. Also, the logic meaning of "implication" may have nothing to do with causality. When logicians say P => Q, they mean simply that in every case where P is true, then Q is also true. (Note: Copper is not a professional logician, but she is a mathematician, and watching people get confused about logic is uncomfortable for her. She is not posting on this thread to argue MwaO's interpretation, she is trying to convey a basic lesson in logic. It would be appreciated if people take the time to read what she actually wrote if they intend to respond to it.)
Samwise 05-13-07, 02:26 PM	I personally think that the rules should probably be read as "if you can make a melee attack into a square even when it is not your action, then you threaten that square". The problem copper is that is what the rule does say. Player's Handbook, page 137, second column, third paragraph: Threatened Squares: You threaten alls quares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. So right there you have your negation of the first statement being made by MWAO and Timlagor. It's really quite sad to see people confusing the converse with the contrapositive. To try to explain it more simply... if when P is true, then Q is always true, then if you find a case experimentally where Q is false, then obviously P must also be false, because if it was true, Q would be true and you would have a contradiction. Except the rules are also very clear that Q is not always True when P is True. Player's Handbook, page 314, first column: threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its nature reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. "Typically" expressly indicating that Q (threaten a square) is not always True when P (able to attack in melee from your current space) is true. The clearly stated exemption for unarmed attacks on page 137 is evidence of this. Again, this rather explicity demonstrates that the original premise being used by MWAO and Timlagor is flawed. The problem is not in attacking their logic. The problem is that their entire train is based on a false premise. It doesn't matter how the logical proof is expressed when the initial premise is wrong.
copper_wyrmling 05-13-07, 02:42 PM	The problem is not in attacking their logic. The problem is that their entire train is based on a false premise. It doesn't matter how the logical proof is expressed when the initial premise is wrong. Yes! I'm not quite sure why you replied to my statement "I think this is how it works" with "the problem is, that is indeed how it works" (paraphrased), but we seem to be in agreement on the basic point: that their logic is right, and if you want to argue it you need to argue the premise (which is not hard to do, as you've demonstrated). Some other people on this thread are still trying to argue that their logic is wrong. Call it big-sister instincts, or wannabe-professorial instincts, or pedantic-mathematician instincts, but it just disturbs me a little to see people claiming that the contrapositive is invalid reasoning. My "P implies Q means not-Q implies not-P" explanation is unrelated to the specific case at hand (it's obvious that if P does NOT imply Q, then not-Q does not imply not-P), I was just trying to explain the idea of contrapositive arguments.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:42 PM	Grrrr. MwaO and Timlagor are not SAYING that p=>q means q=>p (which is the fallacy Zanzibax covered, assuming a statement is the same as its converse). They are saying that p=>q means (not q)=>(not p), which is correct. Actually, that's covered with the Law of Detachment...and covering this argument was the specific reason I included both the Law of Detachment and when it is UNUSABLE. No, p=>q says nothing about not q => not p. However...you have a more fundamental problem. These aren't really logical arguments. These are fundamental defintions. The *definition* of "threaten" is the ability to attack. The ability to attack is not defined by, nor modified by "threaten". It LOGICALLY could NEVER be defined by, nor modified by "threaten" as you would then have circular logic. Sorry copper_wyrmling. You're usually right. About this though, it's simply inarguable...unless someone insists on being wrong.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:46 PM	If you accept that the rules say "If you can make a melee attack into a square, then you threaten that square" Then it inevitably follows that "If you do not threaten that square, you cannot make a melee attack into it" (because if you could make a melee attack into it, you would threaten, and you know that you don't threaten) I think you already know that you're wrong about this. You, without help from anyone else, know that you *can* make melee attacks into square you don't threaten for a variety of reasons. I don't have to list those reasons (blindess, opponent is invisible, sufficient cover, complete concealment, flat-footed, etc.)
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:47 PM	So you're honestly saying that if someone lacks the ability to make a melee attack, he's able to make a melee attack without needing any additional rules to do it? Please... What definition are you using for "melee attack"?
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:49 PM	If you can't make a melee attack without leaving your current space, there are no foes within reach... So, no, you can't Cleave against anything. What is your definition for a melee attack? If there is an invisible foe, then you can cleave that foe...without threatening that foe.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 02:51 PM	PHB Glossary page 314. Threaten is the ability to make a melee attack where you are. If you can't make a melee attack where you are, you in effect don't have a Reach stat. That there are specific exceptions to this does not mean it isn't a rule. That means "threaten" is defined *by* the melee attack. Why aren't you using the definition for "melee attack"??
copper_wyrmling 05-13-07, 03:04 PM	Actually, that's covered with the Law of Detachment...and covering this argument was the specific reason I included both the Law of Detachment and when it is UNUSABLE. No, p=>q says nothing about not q => not p. Okay, this is sorta the point at which I either give up, or commit the debating fallacy of appealing to authority in lieu of argument (i.e. telling you precisely what I'm studying and where I'm studying it...) One last try. The law of detachment is unusable where all you know is that p=>q, and q is true. Similarly, if p is false, then p=>q doesn't tell you anything. However, if you know that p=>q and q is FALSE, that's a different situation. It immediately implies that p is also false. In other words, (not q) => (not p). These aren't really logical arguments. These are fundamental defintions. Definitions ARE logical arguments, in fact they're usually identifications / double implications (A = B if A implies B and B implies A). I don't understand what you're getting at here. The *definition* of "threaten" is the ability to attack. The ability to attack is not defined by, nor modified by "threaten". It LOGICALLY could NEVER be defined by, nor modified by "threaten" as you would then have circular logic. Sorry copper_wyrmling. You're usually right. About this though, it's simply inarguable...unless someone insists on being wrong. I'm right here, too. Think about it. The ability to attack isn't defined by being able to threaten, but if you read it the way MwaO is reading it, threatening a square is defined by being able to attack into it - if you can attack into a square, then you threaten it. That would mean that if you DON'T threaten a square, you must be unable to attack into it, by definition (since if you were able to attack into it, you would threaten it, which you don't). I'm really not sure how I can make this any clearer. You might try googling "contrapositive", maybe Wikipedia can state it better. EDIT: Having read your later posts, I would like to point out that you're telling me I'm "wrong" after quoting a paragraph where I said, "If you read it like this, then you get this result" - I'm not actually arguing that's the correct way to read it. Understand: I am posting here from a purely pedagogical viewpoint, attempting to correct the fact that some people don't understand elementary logic.
Samwise 05-13-07, 03:12 PM	Yes! I'm not quite sure why you replied to my statement "I think this is how it works" with "the problem is, that is indeed how it works" (paraphrased), but we seem to be in agreement on the basic point: that their logic is right, and if you want to argue it you need to argue the premise (which is not hard to do, as you've demonstrated). I am not a logician. I can explain why they are wrong in gamespeak. I leave expressing that in logic to others. All I've been trying to express is that the reason their logic is irrelevant (or wrong or whatever it is called in logicspeak) is because their premise is wrong. If introducing that possibility is not allowed for whatever reason (such as requiring the logic be refuted exclusively), then it becomes impossible to do anything.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 03:27 PM	However, if you know that p=>q and q is FALSE, that's a different situation. It immediately implies that p is also false. In other words, (not q) => (not p). Definitions ARE logical arguments, in fact they're usually identifications / double implications (A = B if A implies B and B implies A). I don't understand what you're getting at here. What I'm getting at is that melee attacks *are* possible, if not common, in the absence of the ability to threaten. I'm right here, too. Think about it. The ability to attack isn't defined by being able to threaten, but if you read it the way MwaO is reading it, threatening a square is defined by being able to attack into it - if you can attack into a square, then you threaten it. That would mean that if you DON'T threaten a square, you must be unable to attack into it, by definition (since if you were able to attack into it, you would threaten it, which you don't). MwaO is wrong. The original point of this was a feat which, after being used, denies the possessor of the feat the ability to make AoOs. I'm really not sure how I can make this any clearer. You might try googling "contrapositive", maybe Wikipedia can state it better. EDIT: Having read your later posts, I would like to point out that you're telling me I'm "wrong" after quoting a paragraph where I said, "If you read it like this, then you get this result" - I'm not actually arguing that's the correct way to read it. Understand: I am posting here from a purely pedagogical viewpoint, attempting to correct the fact that some people don't understand elementary logic. Okay Then I won't say that you're wrong. MwaO is wrong.
Mommy was an Orc 05-13-07, 03:53 PM	No, p=>q says nothing about not q => not p. Wow... Say object N consists of 4 lines. p is True if N is a square q is True if N is a rectangle If N is a square, then N is a rectangle. If N is not a square, we don't know if it is a rectangle or not. If N is a rectangle, we don't know if it is a square or not. However, if N is not a rectangle, we do actually know N isn't a square either.
Zanzibax 05-13-07, 07:40 PM	Wow... Say object N consists of 4 lines. p is True if N is a square q is True if N is a rectangle If N is a square, then N is a rectangle. If N is not a square, we don't know if it is a rectangle or not. If N is a rectangle, we don't know if it is a square or not. However, if N is not a rectangle, we do actually know N isn't a square either. Why don't you try something nice neat and more to the point. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you threaten a square, you can make a melee attack into that square. You can still make a melee attack into a square if you do not threaten a square. ======================================== ============== There is no logical inconsistency in the above two statements. If a square is green, it has some blue in it. You can still have some blue in a square if it is not green. Same logical construction. Same lack of logical inconsistency.
magebeast 05-13-07, 08:41 PM	The horse is really starting to smell.
Timlagor 05-13-07, 09:10 PM	Actually, that's covered with the Law of Detachment...and covering this argument was the specific reason I included both the Law of Detachment and when it is UNUSABLE. No, p=>q says nothing about (not q) => (not p). "p=>q means that any time p is true it follows that q is true." If I've misunderstood your notation then ignore this. Suppose (not q) AND (p) p=>q Therefore q We have a contradiction. Therefore (not q)=>(not p) Your earlier comment about when the law of detachment is unusable tells us that "p=>q says nothing about q=>(not p)". However...you have a more fundamental problem. These aren't really logical arguments. These are fundamental defintions. The *definition* of "threaten" is the ability to attack. The ability to attack is not defined by, nor modified by "threaten". It LOGICALLY could NEVER be defined by, nor modified by "threaten" as you would then have circular logic. Sorry copper_wyrmling. You're usually right. About this though, it's simply inarguable...unless someone insists on being wrong. The definition of Threaten is the ability to take attacks into a square (which you still have when the target is invisible or has cover (unless total cover) and all sorts of other circumstances that people seem to think are relevant. You can't *take an attack of opportunity* when someone provokes it if they have these various things but that doesn't stop you threatening the square. You continue to threaten a square even when it is not your turn. You do *not* need to be able to take an attack into the square when it is not your turn in order to threaten it. (indeed most of the time you can't take an attack -or do anything- else when it is not your turn) The fact that there are times when you *can* take attacks despite not threatening is a function of non-rigorous rules. It does not change or negate the definition of threatening as times when you can take *a melee attack* (and unarmed attacks actually aren't *melee attacks* but a different category of their own) -they just produce specific circumstances where you break the general rule. In D&D one or more counterexamples does not constitute a disproof.
Mommy was an Orc 05-13-07, 09:11 PM	If a square is green, it has some blue in it. You can still have some blue in a square if it is not green. Same logical construction. Same lack of logical inconsistency. You just essentially said the following - you actually did, you just confused yourself by moving the 'if': If a square is green, it has some blue in it. If a square is not green, it can have some blue in it. In other words, if p, then q if not p, then possibly q. i.e. not the same logical construction. If you don't understand why they're not the same logical construction, you should take a class in logic. It would help.
Mommy was an Orc 05-13-07, 09:14 PM	The fact that there are times when you *can* take attacks despite not threatening is a function of non-rigorous rules. It does not change or negate the definition of threatening as times when you can take *a melee attack* (and unarmed attacks actually aren't *melee attacks* but a different category of their own) -they just produce specific circumstances where you break the general rule. In D&D one or more counterexamples does not constitute a disproof. Exactly...
Timlagor 05-13-07, 09:17 PM	I guess you don't know what a necessary cause is. If P is necessary for Q, then whenever you have Q you will have P. P does not imply that Q must be present. You are using a completely improper causality. "P then Q" does not usually mean "P is necessary for Q". Had you said "P is necessary for Q" then you would be right (for some of your comments at least -I didn't read this thread thoroughly but some of the 'logic' was just so blatantly wrong..). However "P is necessary for Q" comes to Q -> P ...or "If Q then P". EDIT: You were saying nothing of the sort in your post! You were replying to MwaO as follows: If you have the ability to make a melee(p), then you threaten(q) You don't threaten(not q) Therefore you don't have the ability to make a melee(not p) NB "If... then" And that is flawed logic, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. p then q does not equal not q then not p Since you were replying to his point and his point *clearly* uses the same definitions as mine your redefinition of the terms simply means that your original post didn't address his point at all. Causality has no place at all in Logic. There is in fact no solid basis for using causality in *anything* except as a useful tool for arranging our thoughts ..but now we're entering philosophy. No, my premise is that you must be a general RPGA member in order to be a Herald Level RPGA member. Since it is possible to be a general RPGA member without being a Herald Level RPGA member, but it is impossible to be a Herald Level RPGA member without being a Herald level member, then my example is absolutely correct in demonstrating the relationship between melee attacks and threatening squares. Ok your notation was seriously different from mine. It may be that yours is actually the convention where you come from but I'm pretty sure you have other people confused with it too ...and it still completely failed to address the point it purported to refute.
Timlagor 05-13-07, 09:50 PM	Okay, this is sorta the point at which I either give up, or commit the debating fallacy of appealing to authority in lieu of argument (i.e. telling you precisely what I'm studying and where I'm studying it...) One last try. The law of detachment is unusable where all you know is that p=>q, and q is true. Similarly, if p is false, then p=>q doesn't tell you anything. However, if you know that p=>q and q is FALSE, that's a different situation. It immediately implies that p is also false. In other words, (not q) => (not p). Definitions ARE logical arguments, in fact they're usually identifications / double implications (A = B if A implies B and B implies A). I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm with you up to here. I'm right here, too. Think about it. The ability to attack isn't defined by being able to threaten, but if you read it the way MwaO is reading it, threatening a square is defined by being able to [make a melee] attack into it - if you can [make a melee] attack into a square, then you threaten it. That would mean that if you DON'T threaten a square, you must be unable to [make a melee] attack into it, by definition (since if you were able to [make a melee] attack into it, you would threaten it, which you don't). Almost.. once I've added my bold text into your paragraph it's accurate. In D&D it is possible to have a situation in which you can make an attack where you don't *ordinarily* threaten: 1) Unarmed Strikes aren't "melee attacks" so threatening is irrelevant 2) Ditto for Ranged attacks ..actually neither of these are actually counterexamples! 3) Invisibility/Blindness/incomplete cover None of these stop you threatening. 4) ?? did you have other counterexamples? If so then it is still possible for them to be *exceptions* to the general rule without the general rule being wrong *in general*. The D&D books are full of examples of being able to break the general rules (virtually every Feat). Thus it might be possible to make a melee attack against something you don't threaten in a given specific circumstance without that invalidating the rule as a whole. "P->Q" becomes "(P->Q) OR X"
clannagh 05-13-07, 09:58 PM	*wonders what would happen if someone introduced predicate or modal logic instead of the basic sentential stuff * Forget causality or anything else because sentential logic is not causal. Tracey has it right. here is a simple example: Tennis balls are round. Conclusion 1. Its not a tennis ball so it cant be round. FALLICY Conclusion 2. Its not round so its not a Tennis ball. VALID elementary 1st year logic .. negating the first bit is pointless and tells you nothing
copper_wyrmling 05-13-07, 10:36 PM	Almost.. once I've added my bold text into your paragraph it's accurate. Sure. I was using "attack" as a shorthand for "make a melee attack". I'm sorry if that confused people: the purpose of the post was to try to explain the contrapositive, since some people are obviously finding that difficult to grasp. I'm not particularly interested in arguing the merits of the premise (because I think it comes down to how you read one particular sentence in the PHB, and is a question of semantics / interpretation), but it annoys me when people get mixed up over elementary logic. (I know Timlagor and MwaO have it straight, and I think Samwise does. Not sure about Zanzibax.)
clannagh 05-13-07, 11:06 PM	Thus it might be possible to make a melee attack against something you don't threaten in a given specific circumstance without that invalidating the rule as a whole. "P->Q" becomes "(P->Q) OR X" An example being the whip ?? The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack.
Samwise 05-14-07, 12:27 AM	The definition of Threaten is the ability to take attacks into a square (which you still have when the target is invisible or has cover (unless total cover) and all sorts of other circumstances that people seem to think are relevant. You can't *take an attack of opportunity* when someone provokes it if they have these various things but that doesn't stop you threatening the square. You continue to threaten a square even when it is not your turn. You do *not* need to be able to take an attack into the square when it is not your turn in order to threaten it. (indeed most of the time you can't take an attack -or do anything- else when it is not your turn) In which case, as has been said repeatedly, it is the ability to make a melee attack into a square when it is not your turn that determines if you threaten that square. It is not that if you threaten a square it determines if you can make a melee attack into it at any time. That is the key to the dispute, since MWAO is saying that when you don't threaten squares you are not permitted to make a melee attack on your turn, in this specific case a cleave attack. Look at that carefully: His assertion with this rule is that if you do not threaten a square you are not allowed to make a melee attack on your turn. It is correct that with this feat you do not threaten any squares. That means when it is not your turn you can not make a melee attack into any square. Since it is your turn when the opportunity to cleave comes up, it is irrelevant whether or not you threaten a square, you must simply be able to reach it. And note: this does mean I was "wrong" is saying the glossary entry was wrong. Which I never did. I said that if the glossary entry is read as MWAO is suggesting to contradict the general text it is flawed. Since it doesn't, that in fact, that glossary entry says nothing different from what I have said, there is nothing at all wrong with it. The text contains nothing that says or suggests in any part that if you do not threaten you are not allowed to make a melee attack on your turn. That is purely a poor intrepretation on his part. The fact that there are times when you *can* take attacks despite not threatening is a function of non-rigorous rules. It does not change or negate the definition of threatening as times when you can take *a melee attack* (and unarmed attacks actually aren't *melee attacks* but a different category of their own) -they just produce specific circumstances where you break the general rule. Since threatening is defined as the ability to make a melee attack and an unarmed strike is not a melee attack then the rule is in fact rigorous. You are disproving your own assertion. The non-rigorous rule in this case is that "Armed" Unarmed Attacks (quotations from the PHB) which cites an exeption to the general rule of Unarmed Attacks. Or you might assert that the text under AOO's should more properly read: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack or an "armed" unarmed attack, even when it is not your turn. No exemption or special case is required in that case. In D&D one or more counterexamples does not constitute a disproof. Of a rule, no. Of an interpretation of a rule, quite possibly. It means you have not in fact considered the entirety of the rule, and all the conditions that may affect it.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 12:50 AM	In which case, as has been said repeatedly, it is the ability to make a melee attack into a square when it is not your turn that determines if you threaten that square. That's how it plays out 99% of the time. That, however, is not the rule - the rule is that you threaten any square that you can make a melee attack into even if it is not your turn. 'Even if' does not make it the only time it applies, it is emphasizing that it applies always, even in the possibly odd case of it not being your turn. That is the key to the dispute, since MWAO is saying that when you don't threaten squares you are not permitted to make a melee attack on your turn, in this specific case a cleave attack. Look at that carefully: His assertion with this rule is that if you do not threaten a square you are not allowed to make a melee attack on your turn. That would be the strawman you guys like to beat up. My assertion is that unless you have an exception to this rule, if you do not threaten a square, you are not allowed to make a melee attack into that square. Turn or not. Examples of exceptions are a whip, an unarmed attack without Improved Unarmed Strike, etc...except in this thread, rules often have exceptions. That doesn't make them not rules.
Samwise 05-14-07, 01:46 AM	That's how it plays out 99% of the time. That, however, is not the rule - the rule is that you threaten any square that you can make a melee attack into even if it is not your turn. 'Even if' does not make it the only time it applies, it is emphasizing that it applies always, even in the possibly odd case of it not being your turn.[quote] Except that rule doesn't say you can not make a melee attack if you do not threaten a square. It just says you don't threaten that square if you can't make a melee attack into it. Something that prevents you from threatening does not automatically prevent you from being able to make a melee attack. That is where you keep making your mistake. [quote]That would be the strawman you guys like to beat up. My assertion is that unless you have an exception to this rule, if you do not threaten a square, you are not allowed to make a melee attack into that square. Turn or not. There is no strawman in telling you that your assertion is wrong. You are making up a rule. Your rule is incorrect. There is nothing that says you may not make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten. Since you like the glossary: melee attack: A physical attack suitable for close combat. Nothing about threatening in there. Just a limitation that the attack to be physical (as opposed to energy or magical), and that it be suitable for close combat. This is effectively the same as the body of the rules (page 139): Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions in Chapter 7: Equipment. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet). That is very clear. If I can reach, I can make a melee attack, I don't have to threaten. Examples of exceptions are a whip, an unarmed attack without Improved Unarmed Strike, etc...except in this thread, rules often have exceptions. That doesn't make them not rules. Those are not exceptions to your made up rule. Those are exceptions to the printed rule that you threaten a square you can reach (for a whip) and to the printed rule that unarmed attacks do not threaten (for improved unarmed strikes. And since when is an exception to a rule not a rule? It very much is a rule, or we wouldn't have to use it.
Timlagor 05-14-07, 04:37 AM	I'm really not very interested in the original Feat but I've been sucked in now. In which case, as has been said repeatedly, it is the ability to make a melee attack into a square when it is not your turn that determines if you threaten that square. It is not that if you threaten a square it determines if you can make a melee attack into it at any time. That is the key to the dispute, since MWAO is saying that when you don't threaten squares you are not permitted to make a melee attack on your turn, in this specific case a cleave attack. "Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, (even when it is not your action)."* Brackets added for clarity. If you think they change the meaning then I'm sure someone can recommend a good book on parsing punctuation. 1) The ability to make an attack into a square determines whether you threaten it 2) You threaten it even when it it not your turn. 3) It is not necessary that you be able to make an attack into the square when it is not your turn in order for you to threaten it 3a) If it were necessary then you would in fact not threaten any squares at all the vast majority of the time since you can only take an attack outside your turn when someone provokes an AoO from you *and* you are able to take advantage of that AoO opportunity. I'd like to hope that that has put the second clause to bed. It does follow directly from this that if you can make a a melee attack into a square, then you threaten it. If you don't threaten it then necessarily you are not able to make a melee attack into that square OR there is some exceptional circumstance that allows you to make a melee attack into that square despite not threatening it: eg you are wielding a whip (-thanks Clannagh). Rules in LG do have exceptions. Exceptions do not constitute disproof in D&D. A= You threaten square X B= You can make a melee attack into square X The following is pure logic and is independent of the definitions of A and B. For all X such that B is true, A is true. B -> A B implies A If B then A If B therefore A For all X such that A is not true EITHER B is not true OR B is true NotA -> (B OR NotB) !A -> B or !B If !A then (B or !B) I think I have unambiguously established the syntax/notation/language now. Premise: (B->A) AND !A There are two cases: (in every situation one of the two cases below applies) Case 1: B Case 2: !B CASE 1 B AND (B->A) therefore A CONTRADICTION Therefore !B CASE 2 !B Therefore !A -> !B Plugging the definitions back in, I have proved that given the premise (the rule in the SRD): (!A) You do not threaten square X (->) implies (!B) you cannot make a melee attack into square X. I suppose I'd better go back and see what your counterarguments were...
Timlagor 05-14-07, 04:49 AM	Except that rule doesn't say you can not make a melee attack if you do not threaten a square. It just says you don't threaten that square if you can't make a melee attack into it. No. It says that you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. There is no "not" in the rule at all. You have to deduce any case involving a "not" and you are wrong about the correct deduction. Your interpretation requires that the rule say "Threatened Squares: You threaten [only] squares into which you can make a melee attack, (even when it is not your action)." In practice I can't think of a single instance in which you do threaten a square into which you can't make a melee attack but that is not what the rule says. The "only" version is possible to infer by treating the rule above as an Identity which is a seni-valid interpretation that happens to work and is supported by the Glossary Entry BUT If the next sentence said "You also threaten squares that are 320'-330' from you" then your interpretation would be obviously false (as would the Glossary Entry).
Timlagor 05-14-07, 05:02 AM	Since threatening is defined as the ability to make a melee attack and an unarmed strike is not a melee attack then the rule is in fact rigorous. No because it doesn't account for whips. In any case I was merely stating that the D&D rules in general are not rigorous. The non-rigorous rule in this case is that "Armed" Unarmed Attacks (quotations from the PHB) which cites an exeption to the general rule of Unarmed Attacks. Or you might assert that the text under AOO's should more properly read: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack or an "armed" unarmed attack, even when it is not your turn. No exemption or special case is required in that case. Still doesn't account for whips. You could modify it to do so but that wouldn't prevent them rom publishing another exception next month. Of a rule, no. Of an interpretation of a rule, quite possibly. It means you have not in fact considered the entirety of the rule, and all the conditions that may affect it. Not really. It shows that in that particular instance the rule doesn't apply. If the interpretation invovles that specific instance then it will be disproved but the exception has no impact whatsoever on the general case.
Cynric 05-14-07, 06:56 AM	The horse is really starting to smell. As the person who originally started this discussion I have to agree. We all know (I hope) that logic has no place in D&D, so how did this get to be about logic and how people choose to express it?:confused:
magebeast 05-14-07, 11:34 AM	As the person who originally started this discussion I have to agree. We all know (I hope) that logic has no place in D&D, so how did this get to be about logic and how people choose to express it?:confused: My fault, if I remember correctly. In any case, I think the answer to your original question is ETV.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 12:10 PM	You're using glossary definitions with the word melee in them...a word which by the very definition in the glossary involves threatening... Not a very compelling argument that you have a superior understanding of gamespeak... Since you like the glossary: melee attack: A physical attack suitable for close combat. Nothing about threatening in there. Just a limitation that the attack to be physical (as opposed to energy or magical), and that it be suitable for close combat. This is effectively the same as the body of the rules (page 139):
Samwise 05-14-07, 12:48 PM	"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, (even when it is not your action)."* Brackets added for clarity. If you think they change the meaning then I'm sure someone can recommend a good book on parsing punctuation. Or perhaps you just need to understand how gaming rules are written. 1) The ability to make an attack into a square determines whether you threaten it 2) You threaten it even when it it not your turn. 3) It is not necessary that you be able to make an attack into the square when it is not your turn in order for you to threaten it 3a) If it were necessary then you would in fact not threaten any squares at all the vast majority of the time since you can only take an attack outside your turn when someone provokes an AoO from you *and* you are able to take advantage of that AoO opportunity. I'd like to hope that that has put the second clause to bed. No, it just demonstrates that you've completely ignored the relevance of reach in the whole equation. Rules in LG do have exceptions. Exceptions do not constitute disproof in D&D. They don't disprove a rule, they do disprove the generalizations people are making about the rules, the way you and MWAO are doing. The following is pure logic and is independent of the definitions of A and B. I don't really care about the logical proof or whatever it is. This isn't about turning the rules into an equation, it is about the rules. No. It says that you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. There is no "not" in the rule at all. You have to deduce any case involving a "not" and you are wrong about the correct deduction. I said the first three, I am not wrong about the correct deduction. Your interpretation requires that the rule say "Threatened Squares: You threaten [only] squares into which you can make a melee attack, (even when it is not your action)." Since rules for a game are written in such an exclusive manner, the "only" is implied. There is no other rule that exists that allows you to threaten. Therefore you must assume that this rule gives the only case in which you can threaten. No because it doesn't account for whips. In any case I was merely stating that the D&D rules in general are not rigorous. That's because you don't consider cases to the various rules to be rules. If you don't consider that the rules must all be considered together, then naturally you won't see them as rigorous. Still doesn't account for whips. You could modify it to do so but that wouldn't prevent them rom publishing another exception next month. It does account for whips - in the very next sentence, and under the reach weapons subcase. "Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)." Generally = there may be exceptions. The rule is rigorous if you read the entire rule. Exceptions are accounted for. Not really. It shows that in that particular instance the rule doesn't apply. If the interpretation invovles that specific instance then it will be disproved but the exception has no impact whatsoever on the general case. Yes really. It shows that you haven't considered the totality of the rule in presenting your generalization. The RAW acknowledges the existence of exemptions. The interpretation being presented presumes none exist. As such, any logical proof derived from assuming the absolute nature of the premise must be wrong. Aside from grammar, game rules are written with a particular hierarchy of control. This is the same factor that is active with soft cover and reach weapons. You must consider that hierarchy, and the entire structure of the rules or your generalizations and interpretations will always fail. All old time wargamers know that.
Samwise 05-14-07, 12:51 PM	You're using glossary definitions with the word melee in them...a word which by the very definition in the glossary involves threatening... Not a very compelling argument that you have a superior understanding of gamespeak... No, that's melee combat. And since melee combat requires mutual threatening. By your reasoning, if I am unarmed nobody can ever attack me in melee because we are never in melee combat because I don't threaten them. I'm sure that will be a big help for my wizard. Not a very compelling argument that you have a superior understanding of rulespeak.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 01:18 PM	No, that's melee combat. And since melee combat requires mutual threatening. By your reasoning, if I am unarmed nobody can ever attack me in melee because we are never in melee combat because I don't threaten them. I'm sure that will be a big help for my wizard. ...and then we get back to the glossary definition of what it means to threaten...which is the ability to attack in melee. So, yes, your wizard can be attacked. Not a very compelling argument that you have a superior understanding of rulespeak. I'm not claiming some superior understanding of rulespeak as the basis of my argument. I'm claiming that if p, then q means that if not q, then not p. Your claim that it is wrong is based on you having some superior knowledge of rulespeak and how things all interrelate.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 01:25 PM	The RAW acknowledges the existence of exemptions. The interpretation being presented presumes none exist. As such, any logical proof derived from assuming the absolute nature of the premise must be wrong. Actually, the interpretation does presume the existance of exceptions. Exceptions that are defined in the rules. Unarmed Strike is defined. Whips are defined. Show an undefined exception to this where you are clearly able to attack despite not threatening. Both Timlagor and I have said this all along. Have fun with the strawman...
Samwise 05-14-07, 01:27 PM	...and then we get back to the glossary definition of what it means to threaten...which is the ability to attack in melee. So, yes, your wizard can be attacked. No, the definition of melee is: melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to ranged combat. If I don't threaten, we don't threaten one another's space, so we can't be in melee. Pretty silly, but that's what your A to B logic equates to. Obviously only a potential to threaten is required, not an actual threatening. But that would open up other considerations of the relationship between threatening and melee attacks that you refuse to consider. I'm not claiming some superior understanding of rulespeak as the basis of my argument. I'm claiming that if p, then q means that if not q, then not p. Your claim that it is wrong is based on you having some superior knowledge of rulespeak and how things all interrelate. As I said, I don't care about logic proofs. It is an issue of how to read rules. They have a hierarchy and an interplay that must be fully considered. If you read a rule in isolation, you will regularly come up with a flawed absolute that will invalidate any logical proof you might want to use.
Samwise 05-14-07, 01:29 PM	Actually, the interpretation does presume the existance of exceptions. Exceptions that are defined in the rules. Unarmed Strike is defined. Whips are defined. Show an undefined exception to this where you are clearly able to attack despite not threatening. Both Timlagor and I have said this all along. Have fun with the strawman... Actually you haven't. Since you keep putting out logical proofs, you keep assuming your P is always True. If there are exceptions, then your P is in fact not always True, so your proof is in fact false. Have fun denying your logic is based on a false premise and so invalid and irrelevant.
ragecage79 05-14-07, 03:17 PM	Actually you haven't. Since you keep putting out logical proofs, you keep assuming your P is always True. If there are exceptions, then your P is in fact not always True, so your proof is in fact false. Have fun denying your logic is based on a false premise and so invalid and irrelevant. I feel like my computer is a time machine. This is practically the same conclusion that I was trying to get across almost two weeks and one massive derailment ago. All this circular argument seems like the internet equivilent of covering ones ears and saying "nuh-uh, nuh-uh, nuh-uh". ;)
bitznarf 05-14-07, 08:14 PM	Actually you haven't. Since you keep putting out logical proofs, you keep assuming your P is always True. If there are exceptions, then your P is in fact not always True, so your proof is in fact false. Have fun denying your logic is based on a false premise and so invalid and irrelevant. Exactly! MwaO and Timlagor are building their argument off the flawed assumption 'if p is true then q is true' when the correct assumption is 'if p is true then q is probably true'. Forgive me if I don't know the notation but I am much more familiar with boolean logic from a programming standpoint than I am from any other approach. IF 'p then q' was true, then '!q therfore !p' holds. However what we have is 'p then probably q', therefor something like '!q then probably !p'. I do believe my logic there is completely sound even if my notation is way off.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 09:47 PM	Exactly! MwaO and Timlagor are building their argument off the flawed assumption 'if p is true then q is true' when the correct assumption is 'if p is true then q is probably true'. Forgive me if I don't know the notation but I am much more familiar with boolean logic from a programming standpoint than I am from any other approach. IF 'p then q' was true, then '!q therfore !p' holds. However what we have is 'p then probably q', therefor something like '!q then probably !p'. I do believe my logic there is completely sound even if my notation is way off. Actually, you do have if p is true, then q is true. If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. That's a rule. An exception means you're not actually using that rule. If there's no exception however, you are using the rule, and it then applies.
clannagh 05-14-07, 10:37 PM	Actually, you do have if p is true, then q is true. If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. That's a rule. An exception means you're not actually using that rule. If there's no exception however, you are using the rule, and it then applies. Actually if you wish to apply formal logic you need to account for the exceptions. This thread seems way off topic but strictly speaking you should be using predicate logic here and formalising the first claim along the lines of " For all(x) (p(x) -> q(x))" where x is the PC p means "can attack" and q means "threatens". This then countered by the claim "For some(x) (p(x) and ~q(x))" an example being the whip. If you want to follow Bitznaf's line of thinking it gets even more interesting as you need tp go modal and bring in quantifiers that symbolise things like "its possible that". We really really REALLY do not want to get into this stuff its way too technical and getting silly in the context of the original argument.
Samwise 05-14-07, 10:41 PM	Actually, you do have if p is true, then q is true. If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. That's a rule. An exception means you're not actually using that rule. If there's no exception however, you are using the rule, and it then applies. It is a complex rule, and so not reduceable to such a simple equation. And, because of that your converse rule is not true. Which leaves us back where we started. Just because you don't threaten doesn't mean you can't cleave off of another valid melee attack you made.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 11:12 PM	It is a complex rule, and so not reduceable to such a simple equation. And, because of that your converse rule is not true. Except it is. If there isn't an exception in play, the rule is always true - if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. And if that's true, the contrapositive is also always true - if there isn't an exception in play, in order to make a melee attack, you must threaten.
Samwise 05-14-07, 11:19 PM	Except it is. If there isn't an exception in play, the rule is always true - if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. If there are exceptions possible, then the rule is not always true. And if that's true, the contrapositive is also always true - if there isn't an exception in play, in order to make a melee attack, you must threaten. No, it isn't. These are game rules not logical proofs. The rules say only what they say and nothing more. The reverse of a rule may very well be a completely new rule. Do not create a new rule. The requirement to make a melee attack is being close enough, not actually threatening.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 11:32 PM	If there are exceptions possible, then the rule is not always true. And stating the obvious. The rule is always true if there are no exceptions active.
bitznarf 05-15-07, 12:11 AM	Actually, you do have if p is true, then q is true. If you can make a melee attack, you threaten. That's a rule. What we have is 'if p is true, then q is true, unless the rules say otherwise'. Thus, 'p then q' is not always true. Therefor '!q then !p' is not always true. Once again just so no one assumes I know anything about logic as a pure subject this is using boolean/bitwise.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 07:32 AM	[reply to Samwise deleted]
Timlagor 05-15-07, 07:37 AM	What we have is 'if p is true, then q is true, unless the rules say otherwise'. Thus, 'p then q' is not always true. Therefor '!q then !p' is not always true. Once again just so no one assumes I know anything about logic as a pure subject this is using boolean/bitwise. This is very different from Samwise's general denial: he is/was claiming that p->q is not equivalent to !q->!p completely independently of anything possible exceptions. My understanding is that the "premise" he refers to is that "you can't make a melee attack meanst that you don't threaten" which follows immediately and inevitably from the wording in the PHB. The problem with your position now is that you are ignoring the fact that exceptions are specific The rule applies. There are exceptions In the specific instances of those exceptions the rule no longer applies. p->q unless X Therefore !q->!p unless X Where X doesn't apply (and X in this case is pretty much limitted to use of whips -no one has come up with anything else) the rule does apply.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 07:43 AM	Exactly! MwaO and Timlagor are building their argument off the flawed assumption 'if p is true then q is true' when the correct assumption is 'if p is true then q is probably true'. Forgive me if I don't know the notation but I am much more familiar with boolean logic from a programming standpoint than I am from any other approach. IF 'p then q' was true, then '!q therfore !p' holds. However what we have is 'p then probably q', therefor something like '!q then probably !p'. I do believe my logic there is completely sound even if my notation is way off. Yes ..but "Probably q" is actually "q unless X" where X is a very specific and limitted list which requires a specific rule in the book to make it an exception. The rule written in the PHB has no "probably" in it. it's a hard "p->q"..there just happen to be other rules elsewhere that make this hard rule not apply in those specific cases. None of those exceptions apply to the Feat you started out discussing.
bitznarf 05-15-07, 09:41 AM	This is very different from Samwise's general denial: he is/was claiming that p->q is not equivalent to !q->!p completely independently of anything possible exceptions. My understanding is that the "premise" he refers to is that "you can't make a melee attack meanst that you don't threaten" which follows immediately and inevitably from the wording in the PHB.[quote] Sam and I are coming at this from 2 different directions. That doesn't mean that either of us are wrong. And I do believe that applying these rules the way I am looking at them will give the same results as applying the rules the was Sam is looking at them. [quote]The problem with your position now is that you are ignoring the fact that exceptions are specific The rule applies. There are exceptions In the specific instances of those exceptions the rule no longer applies. p->q unless X Therefore !q->!p unless X Where X doesn't apply (and X in this case is pretty much limitted to use of whips -no one has come up with anything else) the rule does apply. Well, there is the unarmed strike, and the reason for the original debate Blood-Spiked Charger. "Probably q" is actually "q unless X" where X is a very specific and limitted list which requires a specific rule in the book to make it an exception. I do believe I already said that my notation was off but my logic is sound. The rule written in the PHB has no "probably" in it. it's a hard "p->q"..there just happen to be other rules elsewhere that make this hard rule not apply in those specific cases. None of those exceptions apply to the Feat you started out discussing. The feat itself is the exception Using your logic here p->q unless X Therefore !q->!p unless X I do believe that you have proved my point for me: if you can make a melee attack you threaten unless the rules make an exception such as the whip, unarmed strike, and Blood-Spiked Charger. Therefor if you don't threaten you can't make a melee attack unless the rules make an exception such as the whip, unarmed strike, and Blood-Spiked Charger. There are probably other exceptions to this that I have not listed, but in any case the rules are clear that there are exceptions to your 'hard rule'. You're right though, they don't use 'probably', they use 'usually'. I'm not replying to MwaO here as clannagh has summed it up fairly well I think, and MwaO appears to have ignored that post.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 09:55 AM	Well, there is the unarmed strike, and the reason for the original debate Blood-Spiked Charger. Blood-Spiked Charger does not give an exception. It takes away your ability to threaten, it does not say you still have the abiity to make melee attacks.
bitznarf 05-15-07, 10:42 AM	Blood-Spiked Charger does not give an exception. It takes away your ability to threaten, it does not say you still have the abiity to make melee attacks. p->q unless x We have an x in this case. Thus p->q does not apply. Therefor !q->!p does not apply. The rules make no direct statement about having to threaten a square in order to make a melee attack into it. They only make the statement in the reverse with the caveat that it only applies when the rules don't make an exception. As the rules make an exception to p->q in this case, then !q->!p cannot be applied as p->q does not apply to our situation. Blood-Spiked Charger also doesn't mention that you still have the ability to stand on your feet. Nor does it mention that you still have the ability to use your eyes. It simply takes away your ability to threaten. Just because it doesn't say 'you can still do x' doesn't mean that you can't still do 'x'.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 10:57 AM	p->q unless x We have an x in this case. Thus p->q does not apply. Therefor !q->!p does not apply. That's not an x - every exception to the rule spells out that you can attack despite not threatening. Whip specifically says "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack." Unarmed attacks are given their own category. BSC simply says that you no longer threaten. The rules make no direct statement about having to threaten a square in order to make a melee attack into it. Actually, they do. That's the whole if p -> q and for that matter, the glossary entry.
JamesMaissen 05-15-07, 11:21 AM	and for that matter, the glossary entry. Becareful with using glossary entries for anything but the most basic rules. They summarize things for common usage at best. How far away can an Ogre with a reach weapon attack, for example? Likewise as far as cleave goes, they are granted the attack with the same weapon that dropped the opponent. The cleave feat has lots of problems with it, and perhaps this is going to be one for you (I have a good number of issues with it already). Now I think a reasonable argument could be made about what you are going to cleave with, but not that you cannot cleave. -James
bitznarf 05-15-07, 11:22 AM	That's not an x - every exception to the rule spells out that you can attack despite not threatening. Whip specifically says "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack." Unarmed attacks are given their own category. The exception is that you don't threaten despite being able to make a melee attack, not the other way around. BSC simply says that you no longer threaten. Actually, they do. That's the whole if p -> q and for that matter, the glossary entry. That is not a direct rule, that is one that we (you) are deducing from the glossary entry. Nowhere do the rules directly say "if you don't threaten a square, you can't make an attack into it." They do say something akin to "you threaten squares that you can make melee attacks into. Usually." Something that prevents you from threatening does not automatically prevent you from being able to make a melee attack. Take the usually and all exceptions to the melee -> threaten rule out and you have a case. However we can't selectively apply those rules. They are there, and the must be accounted for.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 11:47 AM	That is not a direct rule, that is one that we (you) are deducing from the glossary entry. Nowhere do the rules directly say "if you don't threaten a square, you can't make an attack into it." They do say something akin to "you threaten squares that you can make melee attacks into. Usually." That's precisely what teh whole p->q thing is about. The statements above are logically equivalent ..except fo the "usually" which you completely made up. The actual sentence (as has been posted several times already) says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." Note the difference between "all" as the rules actually say and "Usually" as you are pretending they say. Something that prevents you from threatening does not automatically prevent you from being able to make a melee attack. Take the usually and all exceptions to the melee -> threaten rule out and you have a case. However we can't selectively apply those rules. They are there, and the must be accounted for. 1) There is no usually 2) The only exception is the whip which is a specific exception
ragecage79 05-15-07, 11:52 AM	Blood-Spiked Charger does not give an exception. It takes away your ability to threaten, it does not say you still have the abiity to make melee attacks. Technically, the original rule item that brought up the question was Cleave, which says: "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round." Note that it does not say "against another creature you threaten" it says "within reach". To me, this is an explicit exception in that it says how the ability is to work and how often. It says nothing of threatening and its a very specific ability granted by a feat. Personally, I think this thread (or more specifically, its derailment) could be debated for a long time, but I just thought I'd refresh everyone on the rule that brought us here. :D
bitznarf 05-15-07, 11:53 AM	Note the difference between "all" as the rules actually say and "Usually" as you are pretending they say. Go read the glossary entry that is being used by MwaO again. It does say 'usually', I am not pretending a dam thing thank you very much. 2) The only exception is the whip which is a specific exception Right, and with the specific exceptions such as the whip, unarmed strike, and BSC (ie. there is more than just the whip) p->q does not apply. Therefor !q->!p does not apply. BSC says you do not threaten. It does not say you cannot make a melee attack. Therefor we use all the other rules at our disposal. Rules like 'you can hit something with a shield.'
Timlagor 05-15-07, 12:00 PM	I will try once more from the top. The only rules I'm using in the section below are the sentence from the PHB and the rules of logical deduction. The sentence in the PHB is in the PHB so we know that that applies to LG. If you're throwing out the rules of logical deduction then you can say anything you like and it will be equally meaningless. **************************************** **************** PHB: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." (it's on page 137 in case you still don't believe it) Now, laying aside the exception for a moment: Premise 1: Suppose that you don't threaten any square. Premise 2: Suppose that you can make a melee attack into square X. Refer back to the rule: a) X is a square that you can make a melee attack into and you threaten all squares that you can make a melee attack into. b) Therefore you threaten square X. c) This directly contradicts the assumption that you do not threaten any square. THEREFORE it is not possible that you can make a melee attack into a square if there is no square which you do not threaten. **************************************** ***************** There is a specific exception. In that specific case the rule above (the one in the PHB that says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack) does not apply because it is overruled by the specific case. The instance of an exception in no way makes the rule any less applicable to every other case. The Feat we started with has absolutely nothing in it to suggest that it is another exception. Finally: Unarmed Strikes are not "melee attacks" and therefore don't constitute an exception since the rule only ever applied to "melee attacks" in the first place. (they are "unarmed attacks" which is a separate category)
bitznarf 05-15-07, 12:08 PM	PHB: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." (it's on page 137 in case you still don't believe it) Now, laying aside the exception for a moment: That has been covered by clannagh already, most noteably that you cannot 'set aside the exceptions' when building your logical statement. Actually if you wish to apply formal logic you need to account for the exceptions. This thread seems way off topic but strictly speaking you should be using predicate logic here and formalising the first claim along the lines of " For all(x) (p(x) -> q(x))" where x is the PC p means "can attack" and q means "threatens". This then countered by the claim "For some(x) (p(x) and ~q(x))" an example being the whip. If you want to follow Bitznaf's line of thinking it gets even more interesting as you need tp go modal and bring in quantifiers that symbolise things like "its possible that". We really really REALLY do not want to get into this stuff its way too technical and getting silly in the context of the original argument. Premise 1: Suppose that you don't threaten any square. Premise 2: Suppose that you can make a melee attack into square X. Refer back to the rule: a) X is a square that you can make a melee attack into and you threaten all squares that you can make a melee attack into. b) Therefore you threaten square X. c) This directly contradicts the assumption that you do not threaten any square. THEREFORE it is not possible that you can make a melee attack into a square if there is no square which you do not threaten. Sure it is, with the exceptions that you are failing to build into your rule and are instead tacking on after the fact. Read clannagh's post above in the sblock. There is a specific exception. In that specific case the rule above (the one in the PHB that says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack) does not apply because it is overruled by the specific case. The instance of an exception in no way makes the rule any less applicable to every other case. The Feat we started with has absolutely nothing in it to suggest that it is another exception. Finally: Unarmed Strikes are not "melee attacks" and therefore don't constitute an exception since the rule only ever applied to "melee attacks" in the first place. (they are "unarmed attacks" which is a separate category) Build the exceptions into your logical statement, the we can talk.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 12:09 PM	Go read the glossary entry that is being used by MwaO again. It does say 'usually', I am not pretending a dam thing thank you very much. MwaO's argument doesn't actually rely on the glossary at all but anyway... You mean this one? "threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own threatened square: A square within an opponent's reach. Generally, characters threaten all adjacent squares, though reach weapons can alter this range. Certain actions provoke attacks of opportunity when taken within a threatened square" I see several "usually"s in there. Not one of them is remotely relevant: all the relevant stuff is in the first sentence of each entry. Right, and with the specific exceptions such as the whip, unarmed strike, and BSC (ie. there is more than just the whip) p->q does not apply. Therefor !q->!p does not apply. BSC says you do not threaten. It does not say you cannot make a melee attack. Therefor we use all the other rules at our disposal. Rules like 'you can hit something with a shield.' 1) Whip is a specific exception. The exception only covers situations involving whips 2) Unarmed strikes are still not melee attacks 3) The Feat in question does not specify that it is an exception and therefore it isn't.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 12:13 PM	Technically, the original rule item that brought up the question was Cleave, which says: "If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round." Note that it does not say "against another creature you threaten" it says "within reach". To me, this is an explicit exception in that it says how the ability is to work and how often. It says nothing of threatening and its a very specific ability granted by a feat. Good point but actually it's only an implied exception (to be explicit it would have to say something like "even if you do not threaten them") The glossary entry I quoted above actually defines a threatened square as one within reach from which we can deduce that implies that 'a creature's reach' is dependent on the ability to threaten. I can't find anything relevant in the main text though and I don't much like relying onthe glossary. Personally, I think this thread (or more specifically, its derailment) could be debated for a long time, You appear to be right but I still find it baffling.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 12:26 PM	That has been covered by clannagh already, most noteably that you cannot 'set aside the exceptions' when building your logical statement. Actually you can because I dealt with them separately. There is only one exception (so far cited anyway) and I explained why it's not relevant. 1) I was trying to keep that section as simple as possible 2) The exception was not part of the rule. Claiming that the exception voids my argument is to claim that the existence of the whip rule voids the PHB sentence completely. 3) to include the exception into my argument simply add the words "unless you are wielding a whip" and "without using a whip" as appropriate.
ragecage79 05-15-07, 01:00 PM	Good point but actually it's only an implied exception (to be explicit it would have to say something like "even if you do not threaten them") The glossary entry I quoted above actually defines a threatened square as one within reach from which we can deduce that implies that 'a creature's reach' is dependent on the ability to threaten. I can't find anything relevant in the main text though and I don't much like relying onthe glossary. threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For a Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own When I was originally researching this problem (jeez was that a week ago?) I came to the conclusion that the ability to threaten is not actually dependant on your reach. In this case the "typically" is relevant. It makes a distinction between reach and threatened squares and suggests that they are not neccessarily codependant. This conclusion is clouded by the threatened squares entry, however. threatened square: A square within an opponent's reach. Generally, characters threaten all adjacent squares, though reach weapons can alter this range. Certain actions provoke attacks of opportunity when taken within a threatened square" This would seem to imply that all squares that you can reach are threatened, thereby logically implying that if you don't threaten then you don't reach. I'm sure if my logic is incorrect, I'll be promptly corrected, but the point remains that it is yet another example of an unintended inconsitency in the RAW. The problem with forming logic assumptions on a rule set that is chock full of weird editing and oversights and loopholes is that they are inconsistent and unreliable as general rules. I look at the RAW and the spirit like the majority of judges and players. While you and Mommy and the others may have your logic straight (I'm still not convinced for the reasons stated above), this problem looks like one that will be destined for table variation merely because of the conflict of the spirit of the rules rather than a hardline view of the RAW. On a fun note, this thread has helped me with a little escapism to get through law school finals while keeping the old noggin' limber. If that is the only concrete conclusion to come out of this conversation, at least it's a positive one.
Samwise 05-15-07, 01:02 PM	I will try once more from the top. The only rules I'm using in the section below are the sentence from the PHB and the rules of logical deduction. Which is wrong twice: 1. You are using the wrong rule. 2. You are assuming that the games rules are written according to logical equation. The first is easy to demonstrate: The rule for melee attacks is not found in the section on Attacks of Opportunity, which is where that rule on threatening that you (and everyone else) quoted. The rule for melee attacks is found in the section on Standard Actions, sub-section Attacks, group Melee Attacks, on page 139, which I will quote yet again: Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions in Chapter 7: Equipment. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet). That rule still does not include anything about threatening. The only qualifier is that you must be within reach of the target. The second is more difficult to actually prove, especially since I'm not a logician, so I can't provide you some formula to make you believe it is mathematically. Of course, that would be rather contradict the point anyway. Very simply though, the rules say what the say and nothing else. Don't add to them, don't subtract from them, just read them in their entirety. Since it never mentions threatening in melee attacks, threatening is not required to make a melee attack. Since that means the rules do not conform to the rules of logic because of the rule under AOOs, the rules must not be written in accordance with the rules of logic. So you can write all the proofs you want, it doesn't change the rules.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 01:18 PM	When I was originally researching this problem (jeez was that a week ago?) I came to the conclusion that the ability to threaten is not actually dependant on your reach. In this case the "typically" is relevant. It makes a distinction between reach and threatened squares and suggests that they are not neccessarily codependant. This conclusion is clouded by the threatened squares entry, however. I attribute the "typically" the the fact that it's referring to "natural reach" while "reach weapons" change your applicable reach. This would seem to imply that all squares that you can reach are threatened, thereby logically implying that if you don't threaten then you don't reach. I'm sure if my logic is incorrect, I'll be promptly corrected, but the point remains that it is yet another example of an unintended inconsitency in the RAW. Looks like a sounds deduction but I'm not sure why you consider it problematic. The problem with forming logic assumptions on a rule set that is chock full of weird editing and oversights and loopholes is that they are inconsistent and unreliable as general rules. I look at the RAW and the spirit like the majority of judges and players. While you and Mommy and the others may have your logic straight (I'm still not convinced for the reasons stated above), this problem looks like one that will be destined for table variation merely because of the conflict of the spirit of the rules rather than a hardline view of the RAW. You have a point there. the rules are not well written. However that doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply elementary logic (and I only resorted to formal logic because I couldn't think of any other way to get something so basic across). In this case equating threatening with the ability to attack is the obvious intuitive interpretation as well. The sentence I keep quoting really isn't very confusing and the glossary doesn't contradict it.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 01:48 PM	Very simply though, the rules say what the say and nothing else. Don't add to them, don't subtract from them, just read them in their entirety. Okay, let's take on this particular appeal to authority... And where exactly does it say that the Glossary are not rules? Or that they can be ignored? If the Glossary entries are inaccurate, that's a reason to get them changed. But you really don't have the option in LG of deciding what in PHB is or is not a rule especially when PHB specifically says they're definitions(page 5), not summaries of the rules.
ragecage79 05-15-07, 01:53 PM	You have a point there. the rules are not well written. However that doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply elementary logic (and I only resorted to formal logic because I couldn't think of any other way to get something so basic across). In this case equating threatening with the ability to attack is the obvious intuitive interpretation as well. The sentence I keep quoting really isn't very confusing and the glossary doesn't contradict it. I do not have a problem with the interpretation that you have come up with. It has been an amusing and interesting conversation about some ambiguous (or maybe not so ambiguous) basic rules. I do have a problem with the way it was interpreted by Mommy in the context of the OP's original issue. In the example of how the (mis)interpretation of the (typo?) of STR*2 as opposed to STR bonus*2 could be ruthlessly exploited, a cleave attack as part of the BSC action was mentioned (the beginning of the train wreck that happened mid-thread). Mommy took the last sentence of the BSC feat and applied it to the entire action, meaning that you cannot make a cleave attack because you do not threaten. When is the ability to threaten removed? During the action? After the attack portion of the action? After the action is over? In the first case, that would mean that you cannot finish the action by your interpretation of "threaten". Neither of you are making this argument, so I'm assuming we all think that is a ridiculous conclusion. So, after the attack part? This would be reasonable but I do not think the text and the sequence of events described in the BSC feat support this conclusion. The part about not threatening is in the very last sentence, after the part about stumbling back and I assume this was done to prevent the Blood Spiked Charger from being able to make attacks of opportunity until their next turn, not to prevent them from taking a Cleave attack. So we can finally look at the loss of the ability to threaten as taking place after the action, which is how I personally think it was meant to be read. This is also the issue that we were initially trying to address, but Mommy is just as guilty as the rest of us in building one heck of a straw man to beat around for a while, avoiding the initial problem that I think I had right. At any case, like I've already stated, this thread is interesting and entertaining. I don't see us coming to a conclusion on the issue that derailed the thread any time soon, but I think the initial problem has not been addressed.
Samwise 05-15-07, 01:54 PM	Okay, let's take on this particular appeal to authority... And where exactly does it say that the Glossary are not rules? Or that they can be ignored? Where does the glossary say you must threaten in order to be able to make melee attacks? Not by inference. Not by logical inversion. By direct statement. As the answer is nowhere, this is a strawman. It has no relelvance to what the body of the rules say as they do not contradict the body of the rules.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 01:58 PM	Where does the glossary say you must threaten in order to be able to make melee attacks? Not by inference. Not by logical inversion. By direct statement. As the answer is nowhere, this is a strawman. It has no relelvance to what the body of the rules say as they do not contradict the body of the rules. :rolleyes: Threaten: "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space."
Samwise 05-15-07, 02:01 PM	:rolleyes: Threaten: "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space." Roll your eyes all you want, that is by reverse inference, and is a condition of threatening, not melee attacks. A direct definition would be: "To be able to attack in melee you must threaten the square you want to attack." Again, where does it say by direct definition in the glossary that you must threaten in order to make a melee attack? Nowhere.
Zanzibax 05-15-07, 02:02 PM	:rolleyes: Threaten: "To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space." That still doesn't say: "To be able to attack in melee, you must threaten from your current space." I was wrong earlier. If p=> q then not q => not p. What you have is: If P => Q then IF Q => P...which *is* wrong...even logically.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 02:10 PM	Once again MwaO has defined that you must be able to make a melee attack in order to threaten. Now find where it says you must threaten in order to make a melee attack. Analogy: A bird must have wings in order to fly. A bird does not have to be able to fly to have wings. -karma
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 02:13 PM	Roll your eyes all you want, that is by reverse inference, and is a condition of threatening, not melee attacks. Definitions are definitions. Not inferences. That's why they're called definitions. And PHB calls them definitions.
Samwise 05-15-07, 02:18 PM	Definitions are definitions. Not inferences. That's why they're called definitions. And PHB calls them definitions. That's right. And that definition does no say you must threaten to melee attack. It says you threaten if you are able to melee attack. You are inferring the reverse.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 02:36 PM	That's right. And that definition does no say you must threaten to melee attack. It says you threaten if you are able to melee attack. You are inferring the reverse. That's not how definitions work. A definition of a term means that you can interchange the term or the meaning of the term in any sentence - and they'll have the exact same meaning. It isn't that you threaten if you are able to melee attack. It is that threaten and being able to melee attack are the exact same thing.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 02:47 PM	It says that you threaten when you are able to melee without moving from your space. That does not tell you when you can melee. It only tells you when you threaten. The reverse of a definition is not automatically true. See my flying bird definition above. Just because A is dependent on B does not automatically mean B is dependent on A. A definition is NOT the same as equivalency. A definition is a statement that conveys the meaning of the term it defines. That is all. You are "Affirming the Consequent", a classic logical fallacy. -karma
Fakegoatee 05-15-07, 05:57 PM	A definition is NOT the same as equivalency. A definition is a statement that conveys the meaning of the term it defines. That is all. If the two parts of a definition are not equivalent, then the definition fails to give the meaning of the term defined. MWaO is not affirming the consequent. If anything, he's interpreting a definition as a biconditional, while others are interpreting it as a conditional. If it's a proper definition, it's a biconditional.
Eric Anondson 05-15-07, 06:32 PM	Has anyone bothered to post this Blood Spiked Charger/Cleave question to Sage Advice?
Zanzibax 05-15-07, 06:36 PM	If the two parts of a definition are not equivalent, then the definition fails to give the meaning of the term defined. MWaO is not affirming the consequent. If anything, he's interpreting a definition as a biconditional, while others are interpreting it as a conditional. If it's a proper definition, it's a biconditional. It is a conditional. It's been proven to be a conditional. These are game rules...they are often conditional. Base hit: You must hit the baseball for there to be a base hit.
Samwise 05-15-07, 06:53 PM	That's not how definitions work. A definition of a term means that you can interchange the term or the meaning of the term in any sentence - and they'll have the exact same meaning. It isn't that you threaten if you are able to melee attack. It is that threaten and being able to melee attack are the exact same thing. Except the rules aren't written that way. Or are you accepting that if two people are unarmed they are not engaged in melee, since that is a direct definition? Here's another one: off hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-hald of a character's strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand. So the next time you use a two-handed weapon, you have a -4 to hit, and only add half your strength bonus since you must have the weapon in your off hand. Yes, I'm sure the information on two-handed weapons says differently, in which case we have a contradiction in the rules.
Samwise 05-15-07, 06:57 PM	If the two parts of a definition are not equivalent, then the definition fails to give the meaning of the term defined. MWaO is not affirming the consequent. If anything, he's interpreting a definition as a biconditional, while others are interpreting it as a conditional. If it's a proper definition, it's a biconditional. OK, then it isn't a proper definition. I fail to see how that is a problem. This is a game, not a dictionary or logical proof in a doctoral thesis.
KarmaInferno 05-15-07, 07:05 PM	If anything, he's interpreting a definition as a biconditional, while others are interpreting it as a conditional. If it's a proper definition, it's a biconditional. Even if we take it as such, it's not a simple equation of "threaten = melee". There is a secondary differentia, or qualifier, at work. Threaten = Melee + Not Moving "Threatens" therefore falls under the larger category of "capable of melee" with a qualifier of "while not moving". Note that this also means that there may be conditions where you are "capable of melee" but do NOT "threaten". -karma
Zanzibax 05-15-07, 07:08 PM	Even if we take it as such, it's not a simple equation of "threaten = melee". There is a secondary differentia, or qualifier, at work. Threaten = Melee + Not Moving "Threatens" therefore falls under the larger category of "capable of melee" with a qualifier of "while not moving". Note that this also means that there may be conditions where you are "capable of melee" but do NOT "threaten". -karma Such as passing near another creature during a single move action or a charge...and if that creature threatens you it is totally irrelevant.
clannagh 05-15-07, 07:45 PM	That's not how definitions work. A definition of a term means that you can interchange the term or the meaning of the term in any sentence - and they'll have the exact same meaning. It isn't that you threaten if you are able to melee attack. It is that threaten and being able to melee attack are the exact same thing. in terms of formal logic that is a biconditional written thus: p <-> q basically it means (p-> q) & (q->p) and in plain english expressed as "if and only if" whereby if one istrue the other is always true and visa versa If i understand you correctly you are claiming that all definitions are biconditional and therefore you threaten if and only if you can attack.
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 07:45 PM	Even if we take it as such, it's not a simple equation of "threaten = melee". There is a secondary differentia, or qualifier, at work. Threaten = Melee + Not Moving Am I to understand that you're telling us that the rules say you can melee while moving and not threatening?
clannagh 05-15-07, 07:47 PM	Am I to understand that you're telling us that the rules say you can melee while moving and not threatening? ride by attack spring attack fly by attack
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 08:29 PM	ride by attack spring attack fly by attack You threaten in all those cases. Not at the start or end of the move(when you can't make a melee attack), but when you're able to make a melee attack, you threaten.
JamesMaissen 05-15-07, 09:20 PM	How does this apply in any way to cleave? Cleave says that you can make an attack with the weapon you used to drop the foe. It's as much an exception as being able to attack with a whip, if not more so, isn't it? -James PS: And again if you are going to use the glossary as definitions you will find yourself with problems as they are at best 'mostly' right.
Mommy was an Orc 05-16-07, 11:28 AM	How does this apply in any way to cleave? Cleave says that you can make an attack with the weapon you used to drop the foe. It's as much an exception as being able to attack with a whip, if not more so, isn't it? -James PS: And again if you are going to use the glossary as definitions you will find yourself with problems as they are at best 'mostly' right. Opponent that you can reach. Reach is part of threatening. Cleave has other issues as the attack manuever requires stepping into your opponent's space. PHB tells us that they are indeed definitions(page 5) - I'm not using this definition to contradict a rule - there is no general rule that you don't have to threaten to make a melee attack. If a larger explanation contradicts a definition, then you throw out the definition. The Whip or Unarmed Attacks are not contradicting that rule - they're specific exceptions to that rule, not general cases.
Samwise 05-16-07, 02:47 PM	PHB tells us that they are indeed definitions(page 5) - I'm not using this definition to contradict a rule - there is no general rule that you don't have to threaten to make a melee attack. If a larger explanation contradicts a definition, then you throw out the definition. So to be clear: 1. You don't consider the rules section I quoted about melee attacks to be a general rule about melee attacks. 2. If that is in fact a rule, then you feel we must throw out the definition in favor of that rule, no matter what.
JamesMaissen 05-16-07, 03:34 PM	Opponent that you can reach. Reach is part of threatening. Reach is a requirement to being able to attack a square. It is not the only requirement. Failure of another requirement does not imply the failure of this one as well. But according to you, what is the reach of someone that's flatfooted? Cleave has other issues as the attack manuever requires stepping into your opponent's space. Now that I agree with.. besides cleave doesn't say same attack maneuver, but rather the same weapon. In this case wouldn't that just be the shield? For fun come up with a way via the 3 core books that you could have an NPC die to an attack without a weapon (not involving spells or the like) that would trigger cleave, but because there wasn't a weapon then not allow it to be taken. PHB tells us that they are indeed definitions(page 5) So what is the glossary definition of 'reach weapon'? If a Large tall PC were to wield a reach weapon (say for example they are an Ogre with a longspear) then what would their reach be according to that definition? -James
Timlagor 05-17-07, 02:25 AM	Analogy: A bird must have wings in order to fly. A bird does not have to be able to fly to have wings. -karma You think that's a definition?
Redfist 05-17-07, 02:27 AM	YAY!!! This thread is over 200 posts now.
Timlagor 05-17-07, 02:30 AM	Even if we take it as such, it's not a simple equation of "threaten = melee". There is a secondary differentia, or qualifier, at work. Threaten = Melee + Not Moving "Threatens" therefore falls under the larger category of "capable of melee" with a qualifier of "while not moving". Note that this also means that there may be conditions where you are "capable of melee" but do NOT "threaten". -karma Not moving isn't actually a requirement of threatening. It's a qualifier. You must be able to attack even if you don't make any (further) movement. It's only function it to say that a human using a longsword (and no other weapon) does not threaten something 20' away (while it is 20' away) by virtue of being able to walk over and hit it.
Timlagor 05-17-07, 02:33 AM	I do not have a problem with the interpretation that you have come up with. It has been an amusing and interesting conversation about some ambiguous (or maybe not so ambiguous) basic rules. I do have a problem with the way it was interpreted by Mommy in the context of the OP's original issue. In the example of how the (mis)interpretation of the (typo?) of STR*2 as opposed to STR bonus*2 could be ruthlessly exploited, a cleave attack as part of the BSC action was mentioned (the beginning of the train wreck that happened mid-thread). Mommy took the last sentence of the BSC feat and applied it to the entire action, meaning that you cannot make a cleave attack because you do not threaten. When is the ability to threaten removed? During the action? After the attack portion of the action? After the action is over? I don't care ;) I only joined in because I saw such horrific abuses of Logic that I couldn't restrain myself.
clannagh 05-17-07, 02:52 AM	I don't care ;) I only joined in because I saw such horrific abuses of Logic that I couldn't restrain myself. hehe .. the use of inferential logic to reach strict raw conclusions is entertaining. The more obvious abuses are making definitions biconditional (because all apples are by definition a type of fruit does NOT make all fruit by definition apples) and the blantant "negating the antecedent" fallacies. Of course what makes these fallacies incidious is they seem to make logical sense to the unitiated and fallacious arguments based on this type of reasoning are the core of much propaganda (not that anyone here is deliberately manipulating things).
Timlagor 05-17-07, 04:55 AM	hehe .. the use of inferential logic to reach strict raw conclusions is entertaining. Err... not so much. It was the repeated claim (in one form or another) that p->q does not mean that !q->!p that got me. The more obvious abuses are making definitions biconditional (because all apples are by definition a type of fruit does NOT make all fruit by definition apples) and the blantant "negating the antecedent" fallacies. *cringe* Are you trying to hurt my brain? Using the phrase "by definition" in a sentence does not make the sentence a definition. "apples are fruit" is not a definition of apples (or fruit). Definitions are by definition biconditional and define things uniquely.
Mommy was an Orc 05-17-07, 08:49 AM	So to be clear: 1. You don't consider the rules section I quoted about melee attacks to be a general rule about melee attacks. No, I don't consider it relevant. It doesn't contradict the definition.
Mommy was an Orc 05-17-07, 09:24 AM	Reach is a requirement to being able to attack a square. It is not the only requirement. Failure of another requirement does not imply the failure of this one as well. But according to you, what is the reach of someone that's flatfooted? A lot of the questions you're asking here are similar to that of say "What is the spellcasting capability of a Barbarian 1/Wizard X who is raging?" Yes, they are a spellcaster. No, they can't cast spells at the moment. Yes, they have 10' of reach. No, for purposes of combat, that's irrelevant as they can't make a melee attack. Same goes for Cleave - you can't Cleave through a Wall of Force because you have Reach and Wall of Force doesn't specifically state it blocks objects. Now that I agree with.. besides cleave doesn't say same attack maneuver, but rather the same weapon. In this case wouldn't that just be the shield? That too. So what is the glossary definition of 'reach weapon'? If a Large tall PC were to wield a reach weapon (say for example they are an Ogre with a longspear) then what would their reach be according to that definition? -James 20'. There's an exception for size that overrules the more general definition. Definitions don't exist in a vacuum. If someone could point out to me the general rule that specifically states that you can make a melee attack without threatening with any weapon?
Samwise 05-17-07, 11:11 AM	Definitions don't exist in a vacuum. If someone could point out to me the general rule that specifically states that you can make a melee attack without threatening with any weapon? I have. Repeatedly. You have never addressed it. The rules says nothing at all about threatening.
bitznarf 05-17-07, 11:15 AM	This feels kinda like the 'channeling negative energy is evil' debates, with MwaO and Timlagor playing Britt and the rest of us being, well, everyone else. Edit: except I think Britt has a stronger case for his interpretation than MwaO has here.
Mommy was an Orc 05-17-07, 12:30 PM	I have. Repeatedly. You have never addressed it. The rules says nothing at all about threatening. No, you haven't. You've never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to threaten to make a melee attack. And as I have pointed out that PHB says itself that the glossary are definitions and therefore rules, you need an actual rule saying so.
Samwise 05-17-07, 12:42 PM	No, you haven't. You've never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to threaten to make a melee attack. And as I have pointed out that PHB says itself that the glossary are definitions and therefore rules, you need an actual rule saying so. And you have never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to be able to cast 10th level spells to make a melee attack. That means the whole question is moot, and nobody can ever make a melee attack unless they are an epic level caster. And there is no rule specifically stating that you don't need to be proficient with all melee weapons, armor types, and tower shields, and have a BAB +20 to cast spells. So nobody can cast spells either. Except . . . The rules are not written to include every specifically excluded requirement. They don't have to specifically exclude anything. The text has the requirement for making melee attacks. The glossary should not be read to alter that.
Mommy was an Orc 05-17-07, 12:50 PM	And you have never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to be able to cast 10th level spells to make a melee attack. I have no need to do so - there is no rule that says you are required to cast 10th level spells to make a melee attack. Same goes for all the other examples you brought up. There is an actual rule that says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack and a definition that says threaten = ability to make a melee attack without changing space. Given those two rules, you need to have an actual rule not only implies that it agrees with you, but flat out says exactly what you think the rules ought to be. And just to be clear, I'm granting you the 'implies that it agrees with you' as I don't actually think it implies that at all. It is neutral on the subject, but you're letting your bias make you think it is positive to your position.
Mommy was an Orc 05-17-07, 01:04 PM	This feels kinda like the 'channeling negative energy is evil' debates, with MwaO and Timlagor playing Britt and the rest of us being, well, everyone else. Edit: except I think Britt has a stronger case for his interpretation than MwaO has here. My position is stronger than Britt's. His had clear intent problems - why are Harm or Mass ILW not channelling, but ILW is. Why do Good Deities let you cast some evil spells, but not [evil] spells. I'm also pretty sure that my position makes the most sense in terms of intent.
Samwise 05-18-07, 01:44 AM	I have no need to do so - there is no rule that says you are required to cast 10th level spells to make a melee attack. Same goes for all the other examples you brought up. There is an actual rule that says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack and a definition that says threaten = ability to make a melee attack without changing space. There you go making up another rule. Charging is never mentioned in that entry. It is irrelevant to the discussion. And yes, that rule says that you threaten where you can melee attack. It says nothing about you having to threaten to be able to melee attack. So you still need to produce an actual rule that says you must threaten in order to be able to make a melee attack. You don't have one. Given those two rules, you need to have an actual rule not only implies that it agrees with you, but flat out says exactly what you think the rules ought to be. And just to be clear, I'm granting you the 'implies that it agrees with you' as I don't actually think it implies that at all. It is neutral on the subject, but you're letting your bias make you think it is positive to your position. I need no such thing. I have a rule about making melee attacks. It says I can do them if I can reach the square. No other requirment is listed, suggested, or implied. The rules say what the rules say, nothing more or less. You are interpreting a rule to create a requirement that is not mentioned anywhere else. You must provide a direct, positive rule to have any basis for your intrepretation.
Mommy was an Orc 05-18-07, 10:26 AM	You must provide a direct, positive rule to have any basis for your intrepretation. Which is the definition in the glossary. Again, any time now, show the page where it says the Glossary are not rules and you have the option of ignoring them because you feel like it.
Zanzibax 05-18-07, 10:59 AM	Err... not so much. It was the repeated claim (in one form or another) that p->q does not mean that !q->!p that got me. That is a mistake. It was one of my mistakes and it was egregious. But p=>q does not mean that q => p....which is what the statement boils down to, not the improper interpretation of the argument. Stating that if you cannot make a melee attack, then you cannot threaten wasn't one of the issues in this thread. As a glossary, I don't think that those are definitions. If so, that one is false anyway.
Zanzibax 05-18-07, 11:01 AM	No, you haven't. You've never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to threaten to make a melee attack. And as I have pointed out that PHB says itself that the glossary are definitions and therefore rules, you need an actual rule saying so. Unfortunately, if that were true, then the definition of a melee attack would include a statement regarding threatening. There is no such wording. You don't have a definition of threaten in the glossary.
Zanzibax 05-18-07, 11:03 AM	I have no need to do so - there is no rule that says you are required to cast 10th level spells to make a melee attack. Same goes for all the other examples you brought up. There is an actual rule that says you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack and a definition that says threaten = ability to make a melee attack without changing space. Given those two rules, you need to have an actual rule not only implies that it agrees with you, but flat out says exactly what you think the rules ought to be. And just to be clear, I'm granting you the 'implies that it agrees with you' as I don't actually think it implies that at all. It is neutral on the subject, but you're letting your bias make you think it is positive to your position. Those two rules state the same thing. Threaten depends upon the ability to make a melee attack. Neither of them state that a melee attack depends upon threatening. You're the one doing that. The two are not bi-conditional.
Zanzibax 05-18-07, 11:06 AM	Which is the definition in the glossary. Again, any time now, show the page where it says the Glossary are not rules and you have the option of ignoring them because you feel like it. A threat is not a melee attack. It's not a definition.
Cardinal Teplin 05-22-07, 01:17 PM	Where things get sticky is whether it is intended that: attackable square = threatened square Whether or not the two are logically equivalent, they are different words, and as such exceptions/variations to the general rule will often be written as applying to one of them. If an exception/variation applies to one, should it logically apply to the other? The question in the case of this feat is that, since it specifically stops you threatening squares, should it stop you attacking them? I don't see that the lack of a statement in main the combat rules that attackable = threatened is particularly relevent. Intuitively it makes sense, logically it makes sense, and the glossary backs it up. So that's the rule, and it's not contradicted anywhere. The alternative, that the glossary doesn't quite say that, and it's not specified anywhere else, so we should allow it, is an arguement I'm very wary of. There are plenty of things that are not specified, that we should certainly not allow. There is a further problem with this particular feat and it's interaction with cleave. The intention of cleave is to allow an extra attack where one would not normally be allowed, while the feat blocks you from taking attacks that normally would be allowed. Which takes precedence is tricky, since they are both feats, and thus exceptions to the normal rules. I'm thus firmly on the fence when it comes to whether or not you can cleave after using the blood whatsited charger feat, but entirely behind MWAO's argument that you can't attack a square you do not threaten.
KarmaInferno 05-22-07, 06:01 PM	You've never quoted a general rule that specifically states that you are not required to threaten to make a melee attack. He doesn't have to. The rules will never state what you DON'T have to have in order to do something. They will say what you DO have to have. There isn't any rule that says "You must threaten to be able to make a melee attack." There is one stating the reverse, but that is not the same thing. In the absence of any rules that specifically require you to threaten to be able to make a melee attack, one must conclude that threatening is not a requirement. After all, there's no rule saying "You are not required to dance to make a melee attack." Are we to assume from the lack of such a rule that dancing IS required for a melee attack? -karma
Timlagor 05-22-07, 06:56 PM	you threaten ALL squares into which you make an attack. If you can make an attack then you threaten If you don't threaten then you can't make an attack That isn't a "reverse". It's the same d****d rule rephrased! It's logically equivalent and has been proved to be so. there is no interpretation of inference involved. There is no wriggle room or ambiguity. it is not a grey area. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING
JamesMaissen 05-22-07, 07:18 PM	you threaten ALL squares into which you make an attack. Except when you don't. Not very good as far as absolutes go. "I" before "E" except when it's not... But that's not the issue. Cleave is what grants the attack. It gives the exception and the conditions. Follow them. If you want to deny this then you need to look at cleave. It's probably one of the worst written and open ended feats out there. -James
KarmaInferno 05-23-07, 12:44 AM	you threaten ALL squares into which you make an attack. If you can make an attack then you threaten If you don't threaten then you can't make an attack That isn't a "reverse". It's the same d****d rule rephrased! It's logically equivalent and has been proved to be so. there is no interpretation of inference involved. There is no wriggle room or ambiguity. it is not a grey area. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING Clearly not, or this argument wouldn't still be taking place. You see it as a biconditional. A = B = A. A number of other folks, myself included, see it as a conditional. A is required for B, but B is not necessarily required for A. The D&D rules set is full of conditional definitions. -karma
clannagh 05-23-07, 01:20 AM	Clearly not, or this argument wouldn't still be taking place. You see it as a biconditional. A = B = A. A number of other folks, myself included, see it as a conditional. A is required for B, but B is not necessarily required for A. The D&D rules set is full of conditional definitions. -karma nah he was right if p -> q then ~q -> ~p that particular deduction is valid but there has been way to much first year logic in this thread alreeady .. is probably time to just forget it
Timlagor 05-23-07, 11:09 AM	Clearly not, or this argument wouldn't still be taking place. You see it as a biconditional. A = B = A. A number of other folks, myself included, see it as a conditional. A is required for B, but B is not necessarily required for A. The D&D rules set is full of conditional definitions. -karma I'm NOT claiming it's biconditional. I'm claiming exactly what I said I was claiming which is completely different. (as Clannagh said)
Zanzibax 05-24-07, 05:14 AM	I'm NOT claiming it's biconditional. I'm claiming exactly what I said I was claiming which is completely different. (as Clannagh said) Your wording suggests the bi-conditional: you must threaten in order to make an attack. Try using set theory. There is a large group of "attacks" a subgroup of which is melee attacks, which has a tertiary group wherein you also threaten, (as you CAN make melee attacks WITHOUT threatening). P (Threaten) Q (Attack) In order to threaten a square, you must be able to attack that square. Q -> P ~P -> ~Q If you cannot attack that square, you do not threaten that square. You've stated a bi-conditional and proclaimed that it's the converse , when it simply isn't so.
Timlagor 05-24-07, 09:57 AM	Your wording suggests the bi-conditional: you must threaten in order to make an attack. Try using set theory. There is a large group of "attacks" a subgroup of which is melee attacks, which has a tertiary group wherein you also threaten, (as you CAN make melee attacks WITHOUT threatening). P (Threaten) Q (Attack) In order to threaten a square, you must be able to attack that square. Q -> P ~P -> ~Q If you cannot attack that square, you do not threaten that square. This would be correct except that that isn't what the rule says. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" is actually equivalent to: "In order to make an attack into a square you must threaten it" (not what you said). I'm not claiming it's biconditional because I'm not making the claim you attribute to me at all.
Samwise 05-24-07, 12:46 PM	This would be correct except that that isn't what the rule says. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" is actually equivalent to: "In order to make an attack into a square you must threaten it" (not what you said). Actually, wouldn't the equivalent be: "You can make a melee attack into all squares that you threaten." The equivalent of your intrepretation would be: "You must make a melee into a square that you threaten." The difference is the "can" and "must." (A critical difference as any old time wargamer knows.)
JamesMaissen 05-24-07, 01:31 PM	This would be correct except that that isn't what the rule says. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" Does it really matter? The statement is false. You don't ALWAYS 'threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack' rather you do so in the general case. Likewise it doesn't matter for the purposes of Cleave, as cleave grants the attack as an exception to normal rules anyway. So why are you guys dancing back and forth on this? -James
Timlagor 05-24-07, 08:01 PM	Actually, wouldn't the equivalent be: "You can make a melee attack into all squares that you threaten." No. I meant what I said and was right. Your statement is not equivalent to the rule in the PHB no matter how many times you try to foist it on me.
Timlagor 05-24-07, 08:05 PM	Does it really matter? The statement is false. You don't ALWAYS 'threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack' rather you do so in the general case. Likewise it doesn't matter for the purposes of Cleave, as cleave grants the attack as an exception to normal rules anyway. So why are you guys dancing back and forth on this? -James My statement is not false. It is a direct quote from the PHB (well there might be a slight and irrelevant difference in precise wording since I typed it from memory this time). There may be exceptions (whips are still the nly definite one) but that doesn't stop it being the rule (it just doesn't always apply). Because people keep trying to claim I wrote things I didn't and completely and abjectly failing to understand basic logic.
Eric Anondson 05-24-07, 11:24 PM	After all this time I finally dug through the 3.5 FAQ looking for some insight into whether a character with the Blood-Spiked Charger and Cleave feat would get to make an immediate extra attack if the character attacked a target with the spiked slam feat and dropped the foe. The answer, IMO, based on the FAQ is yes, When a character with 0 hp and the Cleave eat drops a foe with an attack, does he drop to –1 hp before or after he makes the extra attack? What if he has Great Cleave? The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat counts as part of the same action used to drop the foe. Therefore, the character can make the extra attack before he drops to –1 hp. If this extra attack also drops a foe and the character has Great Cleave, the additional extra attack is still part of the same action and can be made before the character drops to –1 hp. There it is underlined above. "The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat counts as part of the same action used to drop the foe." Unless someone wants to argue that the BSC feat's spiked slam maneuver somehow takes away the ability to threaten even before the BSC character makes the attack.
Samwise 05-25-07, 12:41 AM	No. I meant what I said and was right. Your statement is not equivalent to the rule in the PHB no matter how many times you try to foist it on me. You can mean it all you want, but it doesn't make you right. Your statement is not the equivalent of the definition in the glossary no matter how many times you repeat it, and I see no reason to accept your attempt to force a new rule on everyone.
Mommy was an Orc 05-25-07, 09:17 AM	There it is underlined above. "The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat counts as part of the same action used to drop the foe." Unless someone wants to argue that the BSC feat's spiked slam maneuver somehow takes away the ability to threaten even before the BSC character makes the attack. It isn't relevant. As the paragraph above your quote points out, you still suffer from penalties when Cleaving. Staggered makes you fall unconcious after you do one action. As Cleave is part of the same action, you don't fall unconcious until after the action. You're not penalized(unconcious) until after the action. BSC on the other hand, makes you lose the ability to threaten as part of the action and as part of the action that happens before the Cleave. Suppose there was a feat called "Break Weapon" where you did massive damage, but as part of the attack, you could break your weapon. I don't think you'd be arguing that after breaking your weapon, you'd be allowed to Cleave with it...
Eric Anondson 05-25-07, 11:05 AM	BSC on the other hand, makes you lose the ability to threaten as part of the action and as part of the action that happens before the Cleave.Now that is just flat wrong. At the end of the feat it says: "After making this attack, you stumble back into the square you occupied just before making this attack. Until the start of your next turn, you do not threaten." In bold. It is not as a part of the action, it is after. Not only that, the sentence stating the ability to threaten goes away directly follows the sentence stating that after the PC makes their attack they then stumble back into their original square. If the authors intended the ability to threaten goes away for the entire round then surely the authors would have mentioned it before the "After making this attack..." sentence if not near the beginning of the maneuver. Now that we have had the logic experts chime in, maybe we need the grammar and composition experts chime in. :dancin: Regardless, I think to most rational readers it is crystal clear that the ability to threaten is lost when the PC stumbles back into their original square, not before they make the spiked slam attack or even as a part of the spiked slam attack. I hate to say it, but expect table variation?:weep: :yuck:
Mommy was an Orc 05-25-07, 11:12 AM	Now that is just flat wrong. At the end of the feat it says: "After making this attack, you stumble back into the square you occupied just before making this attack. Until the start of your next turn, you do not threaten." In bold. It is not as a part of the action, it is after. :rolleyes: If it is not part of the action, then how does it happen?
Eric Anondson 05-25-07, 11:32 AM	If it is not part of the action, then how does it happen?IMO, losing the ability to threaten is a condition you acquire once the full round action spiked slam attack is completed. It's not unique in D&D for conditions to be acquired immediately once actions are completed.
Timlagor 05-25-07, 02:25 PM	You can mean it all you want, but it doesn't make you right. Your statement is not the equivalent of the definition in the glossary no matter how many times you repeat it, and I see no reason to accept your attempt to force a new rule on everyone. Well this might have something to do with the fact that I haven't referred to the glossary (which is biconditional) -I'm using the weaker rule in the Combat Chapter.
Zanzibax 05-25-07, 10:52 PM	This would be correct except that that isn't what the rule says. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" is actually equivalent to: "In order to make an attack into a square you must threaten it" (not what you said). Nope...I did state it correctly. Clearly you're not a grammarian. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"...is actually...if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. OR In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square. On the plus side, we have actually found the source of the disagreement. It's right here in this interpretation. Do some clause substitution and you should understand the reason for my statement.
Samwise 05-25-07, 11:34 PM	Well this might have something to do with the fact that I haven't referred to the glossary (which is biconditional) -I'm using the weaker rule in the Combat Chapter. You mean the rule under Attacks of Opportunity? That is clearly a hierarchical requirement. It is establishing what is needed to threaten a square, which is what is needed to make an AoO. You can express a biconditional from that if you feel the need to, but it is as I stated: You threaten every square into which you can make a melee attack <-> You can make a melee attack into every square you threaten. It imposes no restriction on the ability to make a melee attack, as the operative word remains "can," indicating an option, not a requirement. What you stated, using the very different term "must" instead of "can" has a biconditional of: In order to make an attack into a square you must threaten it <-> You must make a melee attack into a square in order to threaten it. While that is obviously not true, it is also moot as there is no rule that states the first, so we never need get to the reverse.
Mommy was an Orc 05-25-07, 11:34 PM	Nope...I did state it correctly. Clearly you're not a grammarian. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"...is actually...if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. OR In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.
Timlagor 05-26-07, 04:49 AM	You mean the rule under Attacks of Opportunity? That is clearly a hierarchical requirement. It is establishing what is needed to threaten a square, which is what is needed to make an AoO. You can express a biconditional from that if you feel the need to, but it is as I stated: You threaten every square into which you can make a melee attack <-> You can make a melee attack into every square you threaten. It imposes no restriction on the ability to make a melee attack, as the operative word remains "can," indicating an option, not a requirement. What you stated, using the very different term "must" instead of "can" has a biconditional of: In order to make an attack into a square you must threaten it <-> You must make a melee attack into a square in order to threaten it. While that is obviously not true, it is also moot as there is no rule that states the first, so we never need get to the reverse. I NEVER SAID THE RULE WAS BICONDITIONAL I did say that a definition was biconditional but that's the glossary and I don't need it to support my position.
Timlagor 05-26-07, 04:54 AM	Nope...I did state it correctly. Clearly you're not a grammarian. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"...is actually...if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. OR In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square. On the plus side, we have actually found the source of the disagreement. It's right here in this interpretation. Do some clause substitution and you should understand the reason for my statement. Then clearly you aren't a logician :P Please look again and note carefully the use of the word "all". "If you can make a melee attack then you threaten" is correct. Your next step reverses the conditional however. You should say: "In order to threaten a square, it is sufficient to be able to make a melee attack into a square" The difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" is significant.
Samwise 05-26-07, 12:28 PM	I NEVER SAID THE RULE WAS BICONDITIONAL I did say that a definition was biconditional but that's the glossary and I don't need it to support my position. If the rule is not biconditional, then who cares if the definition is? The rule is clear. Arguing that some definition implies some additional meaning when it clearly can not just obfuscates the rule, and distracts from any discussion of the rule. And you need something to support your position beyond your saying that is what the rule should be. If the rule is not biconditional and you are not using the glossary definition, then I see nothing at all to support your assertion that you must threaten to make a melee attack. That is not stated anywhere in the rules.
Zanzibax 05-26-07, 03:39 PM	Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. They actually do. Threatening is dependent on the ability to make a melee attack in all three variations of the original sentence.
Zanzibax 05-26-07, 03:42 PM	Then clearly you aren't a logician :P Please look again and note carefully the use of the word "all". "If you can make a melee attack then you threaten" is correct. Your next step reverses the conditional however. You should say: "In order to threaten a square, it is sufficient to be able to make a melee attack into a square" The difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" is significant. It is necessary for you to be able to make a melee attack into a square in order to threaten that square. Observe: If you cannot make a melee attack into a square, you do not threaten that square. Now what if you don't threaten? We can't say anything about the ability to make a melee attack if you simply do not threaten.
Mommy was an Orc 05-26-07, 10:24 PM	They actually do. Threatening is dependent on the ability to make a melee attack in all three variations of the original sentence. No, they're not. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"...is actually...if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. OR In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square. Let's use two similar examples: "If you do well on the written part of the driving test, you'll get your license." "In order to get your license, you must do well on the written part of the driving test." They don't mean the same thing - the 1st sentence is a 'you've passed all the other tests required, if you do this one last thing, you're in.' The 2nd sentence on the other hand does not tell us whether or not passing the written part will get you your license. It merely tells us that you must do well on it or you won't get your license. Same thing applies to your sentences.
Samwise 05-26-07, 11:01 PM	They don't mean the same thing - the 1st sentence is a 'you've passed all the other tests required, if you do this one last thing, you're in.' That sentence says nothing at all about anything else you may or may not have done. Same thing applies to your sentences. Actually, that same non-equivalency applies to your "inverted definition." It is addressing something different from the original.
Mommy was an Orc 05-26-07, 11:32 PM	That sentence says nothing at all about anything else you may or may not have done. And that's the point... If you pass the written test, you'll get your license. It doesn't matter what you may or may not have done - whatever else was required to be done has been done. That's not true of the other sentence. Actually, that same non-equivalency applies to your "inverted definition." It is addressing something different from the original. 'inverted definition' shows up 210 times on Google, most of which are referring to the definition of the word 'inverted' - if you're going to argue, try to use terms that aren't hopelessly obscure and then use them correctly.
Samwise 05-26-07, 11:43 PM	'inverted definition' shows up 210 times on Google, most of which are referring to the definition of the word 'inverted' - if you're going to argue, try to use terms that aren't hopelessly obscure and then use them correctly. I did use it correctly. You didn't reverse the clauses, you changed their meaning completely, inverting the hierarchy of rules control. Since you are off doing Google searches to try and prove I used a phrase describing how you are getting the rules wrong, I'll take that to mean you've finally accepted that you are indeed wrong.
Mommy was an Orc 05-27-07, 09:54 AM	I did use it correctly. You didn't reverse the clauses, you changed their meaning completely, inverting the hierarchy of rules control. Since you are off doing Google searches to try and prove I used a phrase describing how you are getting the rules wrong, I'll take that to mean you've finally accepted that you are indeed wrong. I wasn't reversing the clauses - Zanzibax did. I just substituted into his clauses. Thanks for agreeing that he's incorrect. That logic is about as strong as any other logic you've used in this thread. If using a term really incorrectly helps you get over being wrong, I'm okay with that. 'Inverted definition' can't be a phrase, btw...
Samwise 05-27-07, 11:20 AM	I wasn't reversing the clauses - Zanzibax did. I just substituted into his clauses. Thanks for agreeing that he's incorrect. Zanzibax's examples are not wrong. Your substituted examples, which match the same poor paraphrasing that you are using to justify changing this rule, are what are wrong. You have clearly stated such, but you refuse to apply it to your own attempts to express the rules. You may not like that I call what you are doing an inverted definition, but that doesn't change that even you have to agree that you can't change around words and word order like that. If not, then go ahead and explain why you can't make a cleave attack if you don't threaten. Otherwise you have no basis for that claim, and it is obvious it can be done with blood spiked charger.
Timlagor 05-27-07, 01:19 PM	It is necessary for you to be able to make a melee attack into a square in order to threaten that square. You are simply wrong here. The rule does not say that. The rule says it is sufficient. Observe: If you cannot make a melee attack into a square, you do not threaten that square. Nothing in the actual rule says that. It says " you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". That statement gives no information whatsoever about situations in which you cannot make a melee attack into a square. You have turned it around. I can only suggest that you go back and read it very very carefully sevearl times because I can't think of any other way to make it clear to you.
Samwise 05-27-07, 03:49 PM	Nothing in the actual rule says that. It says " you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". That statement gives no information whatsoever about situations in which you cannot make a melee attack into a square. It doesn't have to. No other condition is ever stated for being able to threaten a square. It is therefore an obvious corollary that if you can not melee attack into a square, you do not threaten it. You have turned it around. The only turning around has come from you and MWAO, who are insisting that if you do not threaten you can not make a melee attack into a square. This is a complete and total inversion of the printed rule. I can only suggest that you go back and read it very very carefully sevearl times because I can't think of any other way to make it clear to you. I suggest the same to you, as you seem determined to read only your own created rule, and not the actual text from the rule book.
Zanzibax 05-27-07, 09:03 PM	You are simply wrong here. The rule does not say that. The rule says it is sufficient. Nothing in the actual rule says that. It says " you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". That statement gives no information whatsoever about situations in which you cannot make a melee attack into a square. You have turned it around. I can only suggest that you go back and read it very very carefully sevearl times because I can't think of any other way to make it clear to you. What it does is give you absolutely no information whatsoever about situations in which you do not *threaten* a square. *YOU* have turned things around, and that is the foundation for every argument you've made...before your statement led to my mistake in logic, as I had not, at that point, understood the accidental fallacy you'd made. If p then q. If not q then not p.
copper_wyrmling 05-27-07, 10:54 PM	is actually...if you can make a melee attack, you threaten. OR In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square. I can't believe this thread is still going... Zanzibax: do you believe that, "if you can make a melee attack, you threaten" is an equivalent statement to, "in order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square"? If not, which do you believe follows from the rules? Just trying to understand your argument here. Timlagor, MwaO: consider the full sentence that everyone has been quoting. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." You are reading this as: (even when it is not your action, you threaten) (all squares into which you can make a melee attack) There is a possible alternate reading: (you threaten all squares into which) (you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action) Under this reading, in order to threaten a square, you must be able to attack into it when it is not your action (e.g. take attacks of opportunity). I believe this accords with both the wording of the PHB and the commonly accepted definition of "threatening" as "being able to take AoOs". Note that the sentence everyone has been referencing is in the Attacks of Opportunity section. Anyway, my 2cp.
Samwise 05-27-07, 11:33 PM	copper_wyrmling: That isn't the problem. The problem is that MWAO and Timlagor are taking that sentence, and inverting the entire meaning to: "You must threaten a square to be able to make a melee attack into that square." This is relevant to the original question, because blood spiked charger says you do not threaten any squares, and a theoretical hill giant using the feat as written and adding his full strength to the damage, is very likely to kill someone, and would likely get to cleave. According to MWAO and Timlagor, since they don't threaten, they can't make any cleave melee attack. I'm not sure it is theoretically relevant to much else, since there are very few circumstances where you could do enough damage to kill when you don't threaten, but you never know. Everything else, in the entire thread, has followed from that. It started with all the logical proofs and what not, then turned to biconditional definitions, and now is roaming through the grammatically proper way to rephrase particular sentences. So again, ignoring all those digressions, the question very simply is: Does: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." Mean the same as: "You must threaten a square to be able to make a melee attack into that square." ? That is what MWAO and Timlagor are saying, and what I (and others) say is wrong.
Zanzibax 05-27-07, 11:39 PM	I can't believe this thread is still going... Zanzibax: do you believe that, "if you can make a melee attack, you threaten" is an equivalent statement to, "in order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into the square"? Re-reading it, seems that there is something missing. "If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square." Holds the same meaning as: "In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into that square." There are additional requirements in order to actually carry out attacks of opportunity...cover, concealment, movement, etc. If not, which do you believe follows from the rules? Just trying to understand your argument here. Timlagor, MwaO: consider the full sentence that everyone has been quoting. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." You are reading this as: (even when it is not your action, you threaten) (all squares into which you can make a melee attack) There is a possible alternate reading: (you threaten all squares into which) (you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action) Under this reading, in order to threaten a square, you must be able to attack into it when it is not your action (e.g. take attacks of opportunity). I believe this accords with both the wording of the PHB and the commonly accepted definition of "threatening" as "being able to take AoOs". Note that the sentence everyone has been referencing is in the Attacks of Opportunity section. Anyway, my 2cp. Actually, my reading of Timlagor, and MommyWasAnOrc's argument is: You cannot make a melee attack if you do not threaten.
clannagh 05-28-07, 01:15 AM	"If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square." Holds the same meaning as: "In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into that square." . I am also amazed this tread still going ?? I am sure everything I am about to post has been mentioned several times by several different people .. this thread is reaching the "wait for an FAQ" status. Anyway .. the above deduction is patently wrong even according to basic 1st year sentential logic and commonsense. Aside from which there are obvious counter examples to the claim that "In order to threaten a square, you must be able to make a melee attack into that square." "While this spell is in effect and you are wielding a projectile weapon that fires arrows, such as a longbow or shortbow, you threaten all squares within your normal melee reach (5 feet if Small or Medium, 10 feet if Large) with your bow, allowing you to make attacks of opportunity with arrows shot from the bow. In addition, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you shoot a bow while you are in another creature’s threatened square. Now yes you can attempt to claim that counter examples are just adhoc special exceptions to a general rule but too many ad hoc exceptions weigh heavily against the rule actually being a general rule. Aside from which you can't just claim ad hoc exceptions arbitarily, you really need to provide evidence that it is actually a special exception and not a counter example detailing exactly what cicumstances allow exceptions ... else its not actually a general rule.
Samwise 05-28-07, 02:40 AM	Now yes you can attempt to claim that counter examples are just adhoc special exceptions to a general rule but too many ad hoc exceptions weigh heavily against the rule actually being a general rule. Aside from which you can't just claim ad hoc exceptions arbitarily, you really need to provide evidence that it is actually a special exception and not a counter example detailing exactly what cicumstances allow exceptions ... else its not actually a general rule. A spell, like a feat or class ability, is always an ad hoc special exemption by definition, as is something like a whip. That is how they are designed. They are not a counter example to the rule, as they are not included in the actual rules text. A counter example exemption is something like reach weapons and soft cover. So yes, there is in fact, a specific, direct, exclusive general rule, that links the ability to make a melee attack to the status of a square being threatened. Whether that follows the rules of logic is secondary to how game rules are written and read. As for commonsense, that is the sense, both common and uncommon, in reading game rules for 30 years. It is how they are written. Game rules specifically state what you can do. If it doesn't say you can do it then you can't do it. Games rules will sometimes list specific things you can not do with things you can do, if the author suspects you might want to do something you aren't supposed to do, but this is secondary, and typically subsumed within the assumption that the rules are only listing exactly what you can do. So: "You threaten if you can make a melee attack into a square." Does any other rule exist that says you threaten if you can do something? No. Therefore, that is the only time you can threaten. Does any other rule place a limit on when you can threaten if you can make a melee attack? No. Therefore, you always threaten if you can make such an attack. Do the game rules acknowledge that specific exemptions to the primary entries game rules will be noted in each specific entry? Yes. Are exemptions to the above two rules noted in those? Yes. At least one for the whip not threatening, and at least one the arrow mind spell allowing threatening with a non-melee weapon. The rules are still absolute, but may be superseded by specific exemption noted within another rules item. Also note that the PHB rules were written solely for material in the PHB. Since arrow mind didn't exist, the exemption could not be noted. For a regular wargame, exceptions are typically all listed or at least referenced within the primary rule section, and that is how the D&D rules are written. Unfortunately, the D&D rules are regularly expanded, but the core rules are not rewritten to account for the hundred of new feats and spells and class abilities. Because of that, you will inevitably find "holes" that should always be resolved by the rules above.
Timlagor 05-28-07, 07:23 PM	Wyrmling: the comma in the sentence makes my interpretation the only valid one. Zanzibax: look at p and q in that sentence again.
Mommy was an Orc 05-28-07, 07:55 PM	There is a possible alternate reading: (you threaten all squares into which) (you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action) Except the definition of threaten in PHB glossary(and we know it is a definition according to PHB on page 5) states otherwise...
Zanzibax 05-28-07, 09:10 PM	Wyrmling: the comma in the sentence makes my interpretation the only valid one. Zanzibax: look at p and q in that sentence again. Yours are backwards, along with your interpretation. You can't threaten if you can't make a melee attack. If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square.
JamesMaissen 05-29-07, 12:56 AM	Except the definition of threaten in PHB glossary(and we know it is a definition according to PHB on page 5) states otherwise... But the glossary definitions are routinely wrong and contradict definitions within the main body of the PhB. -James
Timlagor 05-29-07, 12:27 PM	Yours are backwards, along with your interpretation. You can't threaten if you can't make a melee attack. There is no rule to that effect. You have to invoke the Glossary definition to get that or simply know that there is nothing in the rules allowing you to threaten when you can't make an attack. If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square. That bit is correct. I find it mystifying that you can put these together and think they have the same meaning ...or are you making two separate claims? Have you failed to notice that you moved the "if" as well as the arguments* in between sentences? * thoroughly unusual meaning of "arguments" here but I can't think what else to call them right now.
Samwise 05-29-07, 02:01 PM	I'm still waiting to see a page citation for the rule that says if you don't threaten you can't make a melee attack. Without one, I guess Timlagor and MWAO have accepted they are wrong about that, and the discussion is indeed over.
Zanzibax 05-29-07, 02:04 PM	There is no rule to that effect. You have to invoke the Glossary definition to get that or simply know that there is nothing in the rules allowing you to threaten when you can't make an attack. Ah, up to this point MWAO's argument, the one you've supported, is that you can't make an attack when you don't threaten. *MY* argument is that you threaten when you can make an attack. If you do not threaten, it says nothing about your ability to make a melee attack. Thus, you can cleave, even when you do not threaten. Either you're confused, or you've come to see the light. Welcome aboard.
Zanzibax 05-29-07, 02:06 PM	That bit is correct. I find it mystifying that you can put these together and think they have the same meaning ...or are you making two separate claims? Have you failed to notice that you moved the "if" as well as the arguments* in between sentences? * thoroughly unusual meaning of "arguments" here but I can't think what else to call them right now. The claim that you can only attack if you threaten is wrong. I moved the word "if" to make the argument clearer. I did not change the meaning of the sentence.
copper_wyrmling 05-29-07, 02:31 PM	Zanzibax, Samwise, do you believe the following statement is generally true (barring explicitly stated exceptions for whips, unarmed strike, etc)? "If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square." (Timlagor: I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that the writers of the PHB may have put in a superfluous comma, and the second reading doesn't appear incorrect to me, just rather awkward. The glossary entry might be more persuasive though.)
solbergb 05-29-07, 03:17 PM	Can't we just use proof by absuridity in this one? (there is latin, I don't speak latin. I had logic training and a philosophy course once, but that was 20 years ago) You can make an attack while blind. You don't threaten while blind. Therefore melee attacks can be made when you can't threaten. The above statements do not contradict the glossary definition of a melee attack. Nor do they contradict the AOO descriptions of threatening. I believe if you state that you can't make a melee attack into a square you don't threaten, you are prohibiting melee attacks from blind characters, prohibiting melee attacks through cover, etc. This is obviously absurd. The statement in the glossary can't be bidirectional, because plenty of counter examples to the reverse case are present. What is true is you can not take an AOO if you don't threaten. Reinforced by the close quarters combat ruling (a "poorly modeled in the rules" ruling by the FAQ, but we're stuck with it). Blood Spiked Charger will prevent an AOO after completing the action from something like close quarters combat or karmic strike, but it shouldn't prevent cleave.
Vamroc 05-29-07, 03:23 PM	After all this time I finally dug through the 3.5 FAQ looking for some insight into whether a character with the Blood-Spiked Charger and Cleave feat would get to make an immediate extra attack if the character attacked a target with the spiked slam feat and dropped the foe. The answer, IMO, based on the FAQ is yes, There it is underlined above. "The extra attack granted by the Cleave feat counts as part of the same action used to drop the foe." Unless someone wants to argue that the BSC feat's spiked slam maneuver somehow takes away the ability to threaten even before the BSC character makes the attack. It says you provoke AoOs for making the charge. You stumble back into the square occupied before the attack was made. Until the start of your next turn you do not threaten any squares. It also clearly states that cleave requires you must use a weapon. Spiked shields and spiked armor are treated as weapons for damage only. Damage done via this attack requires a move action and you can't take a five foot step in the middle of a cleave. Otherwise this would make great cleave broken and LG would ban it
bitznarf 05-29-07, 03:50 PM	Um.. what exactly have you added to the debate here Vamroc? Your post seems kind of like saying 'trees are made of wood.' While true, it doesn't help anything at all. Am I missing something?
Zanzibax 05-29-07, 04:01 PM	Zanzibax, Samwise, do you believe the following statement is generally true (barring explicitly stated exceptions for whips, unarmed strike, etc)? "If you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten that square." (Timlagor: I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that the writers of the PHB may have put in a superfluous comma, and the second reading doesn't appear incorrect to me, just rather awkward. The glossary entry might be more persuasive though.) Yes, and things like "arrow mind" simulate a melee attack with a ranged weapon.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 04:16 PM	The claim that you can only attack if you threaten is wrong. I moved the word "if" to make the argument clearer. I did not change the meaning of the sentence. Yeah you did. You inserted a couple of 'not's.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 04:22 PM	(Timlagor: I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that the writers of the PHB may have put in a superfluous comma, and the second reading doesn't appear incorrect to me, just rather awkward. The glossary entry might be more persuasive though.) Of your two possible meanings, one fits with both the comma use and the glossay. The other doesn't fit with either. - the comma gives the sentence a specific meaning which makes sense in the context of the rest of the rules. - the glossary agrees with that specific meaning which implies that they did not intend the other meaning that only almost fits the sentence in the main rules - there is nothing anywhere else to suggest that any other meaning was intended - Your other meaning would be rather silly since for the vast majority of 'not your turn' you can't take any attacks anyway ...including every single occasion when you might provide flanking to someone else. It's quite possible for them to mess up when writing the PHB but there's no reason to just assume that they messed up when something they published works absolutely fine in context ...especially when the alternative doesn't.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 04:26 PM	Can't we just use proof by absuridity in this one? (there is latin, I don't speak latin. I had logic training and a philosophy course once, but that was 20 years ago) You can make an attack while blind. You don't threaten while blind. Since when? Please cite a rule that says you don't threaten while blind.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 04:30 PM	Ah, up to this point MWAO's argument, the one you've supported, is that you can't make an attack when you don't threaten. I said that there's no rule the effect that "You can't threaten if you can't make a melee attack." I have said that all along. It is reasonable to deduce such a generalisation but there is nothing in the rules that states it (except for the glossary definition) That quote (from you) is consistent with what you keep claiming the rules do say. Do you think you can attack out of a grapple too? ie: do you think you can attack someone not involved in a grapple with you while you are grappled? *MY* argument is that you threaten when you can make an attack. If you do not threaten, it says nothing about your ability to make a melee attack. Thus, you can cleave, even when you do not threaten. You threaten ***WHENEVER*** you can make a melee attack into a square (unless you are wielding a whip). IN ALL CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). THERE ARE NO CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square and you do not threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). THERE ARE NO CASES where you do not threaten but can make a melee attack into a square (unless you are wielding a whip). Either you're confused, or you've come to see the light. Welcome aboard. Nope.. you're still completely failing at elementary logic.
ShinAkuma2 05-29-07, 04:44 PM	Ok, never mind. Move along...
solbergb 05-29-07, 06:02 PM	Since when? Please cite a rule that says you don't threaten while blind. Yeah, you're right, blind is a bad example. Concealment can prevent AOO's, but doesn't use the threaten wording. "Threatened Squares" are defined under AOO's in the Players Handbook. There is a reason for this. Being "threatened" is shorthand for "if I do something distracting, he can take an AOO". By that definition, you aren't threatened by a blind person because he can't take AOO's vs people with total concealment. The reason isn't that the blind guy can't take a melee attack (he can). The reason is that total concealment makes an exception to when you can take an AOO...and if you can't take an AOO, you aren't "threatening." You don't "threaten" if the enemy has cover either. "Cover and Attacks of Opportunity:You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you." "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies." The problem here is people are linking threaten with the melee attack, where actually the concept of threaten is actually an AOO concept. Confusing the two leads to weird results, and generally wrong results. In both of the above cases, you can attack the target, but you they are not "threatened". Here are two examples that pretty much show that I and the authors are on the same page with this. Without improved unarmed strike - if you are armed only with unarmed strike, you "threaten" no squares. However - you can still attack with unarmed strike, and it is a melee attack. There is no chance I'm taking this out of context - it's in the paragraph that defines "Threatened Squares". The FAQ says that a grappled person can't take an AOO against someone doing a distracting act who is also inside the same grapple because "he doesn't threaten anyone, not even others in the grapple" (I'm paraphrasing a little, you can read it for yourself). Yet he CAN attack anybody else in the grapple, as long as he does it with a light waepon, natural weapon or unarmed strike. AOO's are like this 1. Determine Threatened Squares 2. Determine if someone did a distracting action or moved out of the threatened squares 3. take the melee attack (if you have any AOO's left) If #1 isn't there, #2 doesn't matter But you don't need #1 to do #3 if it isn't an AOO. You can just do it.
Eric Anondson 05-29-07, 06:10 PM	Am I missing something?Yeah, I'm missing it too. Kind of a non sequitur if one had followed this thread from the start . . . :thinks:
solbergb 05-29-07, 06:12 PM	THERE ARE NO CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square and you do not threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). [ That is the unproved assumption. The rules don't say that, and have counterexamples. You can make an attack into any square in a grapple from inside the grapple. You can make an attack with an unarmed strike into any square you can reach.
Samwise 05-29-07, 07:17 PM	THERE ARE NO CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square and you do not threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). THERE ARE NO CASES where you do not threaten but can make a melee attack into a square (unless you are wielding a whip). Or when you are grappled. Or when you use blood spiked charger. So three cases. And since there is no rule ANYWHERE that says you MUST threaten a square before you can make a melee attack into it, which is distinctly different from the rule that you generally threaten every square you can make a melee attack into, we remain with you and MWAO making up a rule that simply doesn't exist.
Mommy was an Orc 05-29-07, 08:01 PM	The problem here is people are linking threaten with the melee attack, where actually the concept of threaten is actually an AOO concept. Confusing the two leads to weird results, and generally wrong results. In both of the above cases, you can attack the target, but you they are not "threatened". Name a weird or wrong result other than what's happening with BSC, please. Your examples of the whip, grapple and unarmed attacks are not a problem for a general rule that has exceptions. As an example: Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor That's not true if they're wearing a Mithril Chain Shirt and have a level in Spellsword. Or using a Mithril Buckler. Or a Bard wearing Light armor. General Rule = Armor causes arcane spell failure Exception 1: Bard wearing Light Armor won't suffer it. Exception 2: Etc... No one is going to seriously argue that there isn't a general rule that armor causes arcane spell failure, right? The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. There's no reason to use the bolded text if you're right. You don't threaten - that should be the end of it. You especially shouldn't have to emphasize that you can make an attack as again, if you're right, you haven't actually restricted the ability to make an attack.
Samwise 05-29-07, 08:07 PM	Name a weird or wrong result other than what's happening with BSC, please. Your examples of the whip, grapple and unarmed attacks are not a problem for a general rule that has exceptions. Who says there is a weird or wrong result with BSC? Just because you don't like that someone with BSC can make a cleave attack doesn't mean there is a problem with the rule. And if indeed there are general rules with exceptions, then we have one right here, and nothing more is needed.
Timlagor 05-29-07, 08:41 PM	That is the unproved assumption. The rules don't say that, and have counterexamples. You can make an attack into any square in a grapple from inside the grapple. You can make an attack with an unarmed strike into any square you can reach. Actually it was a direct restatement of the rule as written in the PHB. (with an added caveat for whips) There was no change in meaning between the various lines. [and I proved it formally about 200 posts ago] I'm surprised there are actually people who think you can attack out of a grapple. I've already explained that unarmed strikes are not melee attacks ...and [in case you haven't worked it out] that's why I keep using the apparently clumsy phrase: "make a melee attack into".
Mommy was an Orc 05-29-07, 08:51 PM	Who says there is a weird or wrong result with BSC? Just because you don't like that someone with BSC can make a cleave attack doesn't mean there is a problem with the rule. And if indeed there are general rules with exceptions, then we have one right here, and nothing more is needed. Where's the exception for BSC? All the other exceptions specifically state that you have the ability to attack despite not threatening.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 06:25 AM	I said that there's no rule the effect that "You can't threaten if you can't make a melee attack." I have said that all along. It is reasonable to deduce such a generalisation but there is nothing in the rules that states it (except for the glossary definition) That quote (from you) is consistent with what you keep claiming the rules do say. THAT quote is the converse statement derived from the original in the PHB. The statement that you can't make a melee attack if you don't threaten is NOT the converse statement.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 06:27 AM	You threaten ***WHENEVER*** you can make a melee attack into a square (unless you are wielding a whip). IN ALL CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square, you threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). THERE ARE NO CASES where you can make a melee attack into a square and you do not threaten (unless you are wielding a whip). THERE ARE NO CASES where you do not threaten but can make a melee attack into a square (unless you are wielding a whip). I disagree. There have already been a number of examples when you do not threaten but can make a melee attack.
solbergb 05-30-07, 12:25 PM	Where's the exception for BSC? All the other exceptions specifically state that you have the ability to attack despite not threatening. No, actually they don't. "Attack your opponent" in a grapple says nothing about threatening. Neither does the FAQ example that says you can't take an AOO because you don't threaten. It is assumed you can attack your opponent because grapple lets you do so. It is stated in the FAQ that you can't AOO your opponent because you don't threaten. This isn't an exception to the nonexistant "you can't melee attack if you don' threaten" rule. It is a restatement of the AOO rule, that first you must threaten to take an AOO. Threaten has no meaning aside from AOO context. If you get that out of your head, there is no need to torture "you threaten squares in which you can make a melee attack" into "you must threaten a square to make a melee attack". The actual truth is you must threaten to TAKE AN AOO. You can't threaten if you can't make a melee attack, so you can't take an AOO if you can't make a melee attack, barring an exception such as arrow mind that says otherwise. But there are other reasons you can't threaten a square other than "I can't make a melee attack." The statement is not reversible. Attempts to make it so fail on proof by counterexample.
Timlagor 05-30-07, 12:38 PM	I disagree. There have already been a number of examples when you do not threaten but can make a melee attack. Teh only exception I've seen was the whip which I included. Grapple has no such wording and unarmed strikes are not melee attacks
Samwise 05-30-07, 01:02 PM	Where's the exception for BSC? All the other exceptions specifically state that you have the ability to attack despite not threatening. No exemption is needed. There is no rule that you can not make a melee attack if you do not threaten. You are apparently confusing the entry for whips which states that you do not threaten even though you can make melee attacks. Or you are confusing grapple which states you can make a melee and that you do not threaten. (Note: those are stated separately and not in conjunction with each other, which should be a clue.) So what rule are you citing that an exemption needs to be granted?
Samwise 05-30-07, 01:13 PM	Actually it was a direct restatement of the rule as written in the PHB. (with an added caveat for whips) There was no change in meaning between the various lines. [and I proved it formally about 200 posts ago] Your formal proof is irrelevant as it proceeds from a false assumption. You do not have a direct restatement of the PHB rule, you have created a new rule based on flawed logic and an improper understanding of the rules.
Cardinal Teplin 05-30-07, 06:47 PM	"Threatened Squares" are defined under AOO's in the Players Handbook. There is a reason for this. Being "threatened" is shorthand for "if I do something distracting, he can take an AOO". Except that threatening has other effects outside AOO, flanking being the obvious example. Being 'threatened' is shorthand for being in a square into which someone could potentially make a melee attack. I'm not sure why so many people seem to regard identifying threatening with the ability to make an attack so controvertial. It seems a simple enough concept, as well as accurate by RAW. Are there any examples of where it might cause anyone to anything different apart from this one particular feat?
Samwise 05-30-07, 07:27 PM	Except that threatening has other effects outside AOO, flanking being the obvious example. Being 'threatened' is shorthand for being in a square into which someone could potentially make a melee attack. I'm not sure why so many people seem to regard identifying threatening with the ability to make an attack so controvertial. It seems a simple enough concept, as well as accurate by RAW. Are there any examples of where it might cause anyone to anything different apart from this one particular feat? It is not accurate by the RAW, as there is no rule written that says that you must threaten before you are allowed to make a melee attack. Yes, threatening also determines flanking. That doesn't mean you must flank to threaten any more than you must threaten to make a melee attack with cleave.
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 07:33 PM	No, actually they don't. "Attack your opponent" in a grapple says nothing about threatening. Unless you have the position that threaten = ability to make a melee attack. Grapple says you no longer threaten. Regardless of what side you're on in this debate, it should be clear that they then described how you're allowed to attack in a grapple. If you're a threaten equals the ability to make a melee attack person, all it means is that they removed the ability to threaten and therefore, they had to declare a specific exception on how a grappler was allowed to attack his opponent.
solbergb 05-30-07, 07:35 PM	What Samwise said. All apples are fruit and can be eaten by humans All oranges are fruit and can be eaten by humans These statements can both be true but not imply that everything eaten by humans must be fruit.
solbergb 05-30-07, 07:38 PM	Unless you have the position that threaten = ability to make a melee attack. If you have a flawed premise, then a lot of the basic rules look like exceptions. Really, the fact that these so called "Exceptions" don't mention that they ARE exceptions to a general rule is probably a sign that your premise that would make them exceptions is perhaps flawed. Most places where you really do violate a general rule, the exception talks about it. For example, the ability to move into a grapple any time you succeed at establishing it can violate the movement rules, and they explicitly call it out as an exception.
Samwise 05-30-07, 07:38 PM	Unless you have the position that threaten = ability to make a melee attack. Grapple says you no longer threaten. Regardless of what side you're on in this debate, it should be clear that they then described how you're allowed to attack in a grapple. If you're a threaten equals the ability to make a melee attack person, all it means is that they removed the ability to threaten and therefore, they had to declare a specific exception on how a grappler was allowed to attack his opponent. Except nowhere do the rules on grappling say: "Even though you do not threaten, you may make melee attacks." That means you are creating a connection between the two that is not stated in the rules. And, despite your constant declarations, the rules on making melee attacks still does not say: "You may make a melee attack against a target you threaten."
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 07:44 PM	I'm not sure why so many people seem to regard identifying threatening with the ability to make an attack so controvertial. It seems a simple enough concept, as well as accurate by RAW. Are there any examples of where it might cause anyone to anything different apart from this one particular feat? I really don't understand it either - threatening is so consistent that even though we're having this debate, there's only one instance of where actual play acts differently. When a rule acts that consistently in a gaming system, that's almost always the original rule that then got extrapolated from.
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 07:52 PM	What Samwise said. All apples are fruit and can be eaten by humans All oranges are fruit and can be eaten by humans These statements can both be true but not imply that everything eaten by humans must be fruit. You're doing not q incorrectly. The not q of both of your statements is that we have something that humans cannot eat. We therefore know it is not an apple or orange.
Samwise 05-30-07, 08:11 PM	I really don't understand it either - threatening is so consistent that even though we're having this debate, there's only one instance of where actual play acts differently. When a rule acts that consistently in a gaming system, that's almost always the original rule that then got extrapolated from. Except threatening is not consistent in the manner you are suggesting. Read the specific cases again: "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the are into which you can make an attack." The exception is to the rules for melee weapons threatening, not threatening being required to make a melee attack. "Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons." At no point is this labeled an exemption to the rules for threatening. So let us, in fact, consider what should be the obvious questions: If you kill someone with a whip, can you cleave? If you kill someone in a grapple, can you cleave? Just in case, what does cleave say? "Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round." Hey! Hold on a minute . . . "to make it drop"? "typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points"? I don't have to kill someone, I can just knock them out! So let's change those above to "drop," and add: If you drop someone with an unarmed strike, can you cleave? It specifies a "creature within reach," not one that you threaten. Now granted, theoretically, since it does say "melee attack," you could not use it with an unarmed strike which is not, by definition, a melee attack. And you would need to have made a melee attack to kill the person in the grapple, not just have used the "damage your opponent" option. But again, that text for cleave does not include the word "threaten" anywhere. So can you cleave with a whip or after attacking in a grapple?
solbergb 05-30-07, 08:20 PM	You're doing not q incorrectly. The not q of both of your statements is that we have something that humans cannot eat. We therefore know it is not an apple or orange. We're not trying to prove not Q here. Not Q in this context would be "if I can't make a melee attack I can't threaten". Which is true. But the truth of that doesn't at all imply that you must threaten to make a melee attack. We're trying to prove equivalence. But I did do it wrong, because the statement was a chain, not two implies trying to be reversed. In order to threaten, you must be able to make a melee attack into a square. That's in the definition of "Threatened squares". In order to flank, you must threaten the square occupied by the person to be flanked. That's in the definition of "flanking" This is a true statement that can be derived from the above true statements. In order to flank, you must be able to make a melee attack into a square occupied by the person you are attempting to flank. (this is a necessary but not sufficient condition to flanking. Other conditions must also be met) This statement, however, can not be derived from the above true statements: In order to make a melee attack into a square, you must threaten it. And of course this one is even more absurd, but it is what you get if you treat statements as reversible (or a -> B as the same as a = b) In order to make a melee attack on an individual, you must first flank him. Not all statements are reversible. A can imply B without A = B. This attempt to create an equivalence between threatening and melee attacks isn't supported by the handful of statements in the rules that talk about both in the same statement, and the use of Threaten and Melee Attack in other contexts in no way implies that the two are interchangeable either, unless you create this association in your head. The text doesn't support it. After reading this thread I'm also pretty convinced it doesn't even loosely imply it either. The burden of proof to connect the two is on the people asserting the connection, and that proof has not been demonstrated, and indeed has been contradicted by these so called 'Exceptions" that don't actually mention any exceptions in the rules.
solbergb 05-30-07, 08:24 PM	heh...grapple and cleave is interesting. Yeah..if multiples are in the grapple, you could only cleave to others in the grapple...but if you dropped the only grappler, you would no longer be grappled and could cleave to anyone nearby in reach. But only if you used "attack your opponent". Because grappling for damage isn't an attack (and also isn't a melee weapon), and thus can't trigger a cleave. Interesting.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 08:37 PM	Except that threatening has other effects outside AOO, flanking being the obvious example. Being 'threatened' is shorthand for being in a square into which someone could potentially make a melee attack. I'm not sure why so many people seem to regard identifying threatening with the ability to make an attack so controvertial. It seems a simple enough concept, as well as accurate by RAW. Are there any examples of where it might cause anyone to anything different apart from this one particular feat? Yes, threatening is a *consequence* of being able to make a melee attack. There are some deep problems when you begin to say that threatening is *required* in order to *make* a melee attack.
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 08:39 PM	The text doesn't support it. After reading this thread I'm also pretty convinced it doesn't even loosely imply it either. The burden of proof to connect the two is on the people asserting the connection, and that proof has not been demonstrated, and indeed has been contradicted by these so called 'Exceptions" that don't actually mention any exceptions in the rules. An exception is not a contradiction. You can quite easily have a general rule(all full-round actions take place on your initiative), an exception(one round actions are full-round actions that don't finish on your initiative) and have people argue that all things saying full-round actions or less are only talking about the general rule. If that doesn't sound like one of your positions Brad, let me know. The definition(and we know it is a definition because PHB tells us so on page 5) of threaten in the glossary is the ability to make a melee attack without changing space. If you don't even count that as loosely implying it, then there's really nothing to discuss.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 08:39 PM	Unless you have the position that threaten = ability to make a melee attack. Grapple says you no longer threaten. Regardless of what side you're on in this debate, it should be clear that they then described how you're allowed to attack in a grapple. If you're a threaten equals the ability to make a melee attack person, all it means is that they removed the ability to threaten and therefore, they had to declare a specific exception on how a grappler was allowed to attack his opponent. That also shows how you can make a melee attack without threatening. Because one *can* make melee attacks while threatening. Grapple describes how it is done. One *should* conclude that threatening is a common consequence of the ability to make a melee attack...even from this example. ...and from the whip earlier. ...and the reverse: a melee attack is only possible if you threaten, doesn't make sense.
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 08:40 PM	heh...grapple and cleave is interesting. Yeah..if multiples are in the grapple, you could only cleave to others in the grapple...but if you dropped the only grappler, you would no longer be grappled and could cleave to anyone nearby in reach. But only if you used "attack your opponent". Because grappling for damage isn't an attack (and also isn't a melee weapon), and thus can't trigger a cleave. Interesting. And I have the exact same position. As Grapple and Whips define what happens when you don't threaten.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 08:42 PM	You're doing not q incorrectly. The not q of both of your statements is that we have something that humans cannot eat. We therefore know it is not an apple or orange. As I said before, if you wanted to do this with the PHB quotes concerning threatening and melee attacks, then you must conclude that you cannot threaten if you cannot make a melee attack. Not You cannot make a melee attack if you do not threaten. Because they do not mean the same thing.
Samwise 05-30-07, 08:53 PM	heh...grapple and cleave is interesting. Yeah..if multiples are in the grapple, you could only cleave to others in the grapple...but if you dropped the only grappler, you would no longer be grappled and could cleave to anyone nearby in reach. But only if you used "attack your opponent". Because grappling for damage isn't an attack (and also isn't a melee weapon), and thus can't trigger a cleave. Interesting. Well, I would exclude a case where you are free of the grapple after killing one person, as you would then threaten, and the particular case would be moot. So restrict it just to multiple creatures in a grapple. Oh, and your examples are great, I would just modify them slightly to highlight the error being made by MWAO and Timlagor thus: The rule is: (In order) to threaten, (you must be able) to make a melee attack into a square. It is not correct to fully transposing the italicized phrases, producing the incorrect concept: (you must be able) to threaten, (In order) to make a melee attack into a square. The flaw in making such a concept can be demonstrated by looking at the rule under flanking on page 153: Only a creature or character that (threatens the defender) can (help an attacker get a flanking bonus). And trying to switch those italicized phrases to produce: Only a creature or character that (helps an attacker get a flanking bonus) can (threaten the defender). As solbergb correctly noted, that inevitably leads to: Only a creature or character that (helps an attacker get a flanking bonus) can (threaten the defender), and (you must be able) to threaten, (In order) to make a melee attack into a square. Remove the redundant phrases on threatening from that, and you are left with what solbergb expressed: Only a creature or character that (helps an attacker get a flanking bonus) can make a melee attack into a square. That should make it quite clear that you can not casually transpose phrases and have the rule mean "the same thing" by any stretch of the imagination, and particularly not by any stretch of logic.
Zanzibax 05-30-07, 08:53 PM	An exception is not a contradiction. You can quite easily have a general rule(all full-round actions take place on your initiative), an exception(one round actions are full-round actions that don't finish on your initiative) and have people argue that all things saying full-round actions or less are only talking about the general rule. If that doesn't sound like one of your positions Brad, let me know. The definition(and we know it is a definition because PHB tells us so on page 5) of threaten in the glossary is the ability to make a melee attack without changing space. If you don't even count that as loosely implying it, then there's really nothing to discuss. Clearly the ability to threaten is a consequence of the ability to make a melee attack without changing space. Now look at flank again.
Samwise 05-30-07, 09:04 PM	And I have the exact same position. As Grapple and Whips define what happens when you don't threaten. They do? Where? Whips say they are a melee attack but you don't threaten. The entry defines no consequences of not threatening. Grapple likewise states no consequences of not threatening. The entry for attacking your opponent mentions only limits on how you may attack in complete independence from the inability to threaten. Are you transposing more phrases there and assuming you haven't changed the rules again?
Mommy was an Orc 05-30-07, 10:13 PM	They do? Where? Whips say they are a melee attack but you don't threaten. The entry defines no consequences of not threatening. First off, there's the general rule...but... Whips specifically state that they don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. Again, why mention the can make an attack - by your logic, it should be more than enough to simply state that you don't threaten as there is no linkage between not threatening and making an attack in your eyes. Grapple likewise states no consequences of not threatening. The entry for attacking your opponent mentions only limits on how you may attack in complete independence from the inability to threaten. Grappling Consequences While you’re grappling, your ability to attack others and defend yourself is limited. No Threatened Squares You don’t threaten any squares while grappling. No Dexterity Bonus You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.) No Movement You can’t move normally while grappling. You may, however, make an opposed grapple check to move while grappling. That's one section - now note it doesn't say 'your ability to make AoOs, flank, or defend yourself is limited' - it says your ability to attack is limited. And the only one of those three that could actually limit your ability to attack is the no threatened squares part.
Samwise 05-30-07, 11:05 PM	First off, there's the general rule...but... First off, there is no general rule. Whips specifically state that they don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. Again, why mention the can make an attack - by your logic, it should be more than enough to simply state that you don't threaten as there is no linkage between not threatening and making an attack in your eyes. It doesn't mention you can make an attack. If you refer to the actual rule, you will know what it says. Since you seem to have forgotten: "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes)." What it mentions is that even though it is a melee weapon with a 15-foot reach, it does not use two of the normal rules for melee weapons (threatening) with reach (attack all squares within reach, not just those at the outside). As for logic, since the standard rules are not used for those two things, they must obviously be stated. I am not really sure how much more simple and direct that could possibly be. That's one section - now note it doesn't say 'your ability to make AoOs, flank, or defend yourself is limited' - it says your ability to attack is limited. And the only one of those three that could actually limit your ability to attack is the no threatened squares part. Correct, when you do not threaten squares, you can not take AoOs, and that is a limit on your ability to attack others. This also limits your ability to defend yourself, as you could not make AoOs against further grapple checks, disarm attempts, trip attempts, or other things that trigger AoOs. Once again, this is a very simple and direct concept. So other than your made up rule based on transposing phrases in other rules in a manner that can be used to make it impossible to attack in melee unless you flank, what exactly do you have to support your claims of the rules saying things they clearly don't?
JamesMaissen 05-30-07, 11:25 PM	Just in case, what does cleave say? "Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round." (snip) Now granted, theoretically, since it does say "melee attack," you could not use it with an unarmed strike which is not, by definition, a melee attack. And you would need to have made a melee attack to kill the person in the grapple, not just have used the "damage your opponent" option. But again, that text for cleave does not include the word "threaten" anywhere. Where does it say that you need to have made a melee attack to cleave? Cleave is badly written. If you drop someone with a ranged attack does cleave trigger? The condition seems to trigger, it's just the ability to take the cleave attack that might be in question. Hence the jokes about cleaving with a sling and strangling the enemy next to you with it. -James
Samwise 05-31-07, 12:08 AM	Where does it say that you need to have made a melee attack to cleave? Cleave is badly written. If you drop someone with a ranged attack does cleave trigger? The condition seems to trigger, it's just the ability to take the cleave attack that might be in question. Hence the jokes about cleaving with a sling and strangling the enemy next to you with it. -James First, note that I referenced melee attack specifically in regards to cleaving with unarmed strike. Since an unarmed strike is not a melee attack, and since you must use the same weapon, and since cleave only allows an extra melee attack, you could not cleave with unarmed strike. For the rest, as per the entire feat. The first sentence: "you get an immediate, extra melee attack" The third sentence: "The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature." The extra attack must be a melee attack, and it must be with the same weapon used to drop the first target. Looking at the entry for a sling, I do not see how it can be used to make a melee attack, so joke aside, it won't work. Conceivably, if there is some sort of weapon that can make both ranged attacks and melee attacks in the same round, then yes, you could kill a creature with a ranged attack and then cleave with that weapon. You would, bizarrely, use your ranged attack modifier for that melee attack. And actually, checking the one weapon I suspected might qualify: "A character wielding an elvencraft bow can freely interchange melee and ranged attacks during the same round." So, in point of fact, if wielding an elvencraft bow, you can cleave after shooting someone with an arrow. I would not imagine all that many PCs who use elvencraft bows have power attack and cleave, but if you do, the way cleave is written, you are fully entitled to cleave Bad Guy #2 who is adjacent to you after putting an arrow in the eye of Bad Guy #1 who is across the field. Strange, weird, unnatural, an offense against the proper order of the universe, or just "So that's why elves are still alive despite having a -2 Con modifier!" it is possible. So I disagree that cleave is badly written. It may assume that nothing like elvencraft bows could exist, so the concept of cleaving off a ranged attack should be moot. But the bows now exist, the feat is worded the way it is, and until there is errata, there is no requirement that you use a melee attack to be able to cleave, only that you use the same weapon. Well, unless someone claims you used the ammunition to do the killing, but since you can use an arrow to make a melee attack, that would be moot, and it would let you cleave with an ordinary bow. Or they could claim you are using the weapon differently, and so don't qualify, but the text of cleave says nothing about the mode the weapon is used in. Again though, nothing in cleave specifies that, nor do I see anything barring you from "switching ends" of a double weapon, or damage type of a weapon with two damage types when cleaving, so there would be no justification to adding a rule just because you don't like the aesthetics of someone shooting an arrow then bopping someone on the head with their elvencraft bow. And that reminds me: Too many times there is a demand to "prove" something is possible by showing an example. The limits of my imagination and/or ability to find an obscure reference in the rules, or indeed the lack of a currently existing example of something in the rules, does not mean that a particular something is in fact impossible or against the rules. It just means I, as an individual, can't come up with a way to do it, or that some author hasn't created some way to do it just yet. (Which directly relates to why arrow mind and blood spiked charger aren't mentioned as exception in the PHB - they didn't exist when the PHB was written, so obviously they can't be listed as exceptions there.) For the whip, I spent some time considering how exactly you could kill someone with a whip to be able to cleave, overlooking that I could just knock them out. That didn't mean it was against the rules, just that I couldn't think of how it could be done right away. As it happens, even though it isn't needed, there is in fact a magic whip that does normal damage, so yes, you can kill someone with a whip.
clannagh 05-31-07, 12:31 AM	Actually there is some leeway to argue that "extra melee attack" implies at least one existing melee attack .. but nevermind that. If your example works for elvencraft bows, sword bows etc then it should also work for spells like produce flame.
Timlagor 05-31-07, 07:19 AM	I disagree. There have already been a number of examples when you do not threaten but can make a melee attack. Specific exceptions are exceptions. The rule I quoted is in the PHB in black and white. It is a rule in D&D. There may be times when it does not apply but that doesn't stop it being a rule. Please state which step in teh chain you have trouble with.
Timlagor 05-31-07, 07:27 AM	We're not trying to prove not Q here. Not Q in this context would be "if I can't make a melee attack I can't threaten". Which is true. But the truth of that doesn't at all imply that you must threaten to make a melee attack. You are using a different definitino of Q here. Our definition is "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" p= "you can make a melee attack" q= "you threaten" The rule says: "p -> q" (more precisely: "q <- p") We're trying to prove equivalence. But I did do it wrong, because the statement was a chain, not two implies trying to be reversed. In order to threaten, you must be able to make a melee attack into a square. That's in the definition of "Threatened squares". Only if you're reading the glossary. (which would defeat your whole argument anyway since it does say p=q) The rule I keep quoting says nothing of the sort. It says that you threaten ALL squares you can make a melee attack into. It does not say that you don't threaten those that you can't make a melee attack into. (the rest of your post depends on your false assertion above)
Timlagor 05-31-07, 08:09 AM	Tordek and a bugbear are grappling. Mialee is standing next to the grapple. Can the bugbear make a melee attack against Mialee? (without escaping the grapple first)
Samwise 05-31-07, 10:07 AM	Only if you're reading the glossary. (which would defeat your whole argument anyway since it does say p=q) Where does the glossary say that you can't attack a square you don't threaten? You are saying that by transposing phrases within the definitions, inverting the entire definition, but the glossary doesn't say that anywhere, or you would be able to produce a specific, unmodified, quote. The rule I keep quoting says nothing of the sort. It says that you threaten ALL squares you can make a melee attack into. It does not say that you don't threaten those that you can't make a melee attack into. Which indeed says nothing about not being able to mella attack into a square you don't threaten. So where is the basis for your saying that is in the rules? (the rest of your post depends on your false assertion above) I'm still waiting for you to explain away your false assertion.
Samwise 05-31-07, 10:16 AM	Tordek and a bugbear are grappling. Mialee is standing next to the grapple. Can the bugbear make a melee attack against Mialee? (without escaping the grapple first) Once again, this is stated very clearly and very simply in the rules. The answer is no. You can only melee attack another person in the grapple. Specific exceptions are exceptions. The rule I quoted is in the PHB in black and white. No it isn't. There is a rule in the PHB that you quoted, but it does not say in any colors that you can not melee attack if you do not threaten. It is a rule in D&D. There may be times when it does not apply but that doesn't stop it being a rule. Please state which step in teh chain you have trouble with. Please state why you are transposing phrases and inverting the rules in the PHB. Please state where the PHB says you are allowed to transpose words when reading the ruls.
Samwise 05-31-07, 10:20 AM	Actually there is some leeway to argue that "extra melee attack" implies at least one existing melee attack .. but nevermind that. Perhaps some. But we know from the rapid shot feat that the extra ranged attack can in fact be combined with non-ranged attacks, so there is more weight to the "extra melee attack" being primarily "extra" with the "melee" attack limiting what type the attack can be. If your example works for elvencraft bows, sword bows etc then it should also work for spells like produce flame. Should it? Spells like that use unarmed attacks, which are technically a different category of attacks from melee attacks. Since you must use the same weapon and make a melee attack, they would not qualify.
pedr 05-31-07, 10:30 AM	I've not followed this, and I have failed to fully understand each point in the thread so apologies if this has been covered. From my limited understanding, it appears to be as simple as this: The PH says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." This is actually not universally true, because of the whip, so correctly stated, the definition is: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, unless another rule allows you to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten." Therefore every square into which you can make a melee attack is threatened by you, unless there is some other rule which permits you to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten. Therefore if a square isn't threatened by you then you cannot make a melee attack (unless the rules tell you that you can). The conclusion is not a 'transposition of words when reading the rules'. It is the exact same rule, read from the other direction. It is impossible to have a rule which says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, unless another rule alters this one" and to simultaneously have the ability to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten without the operation of a rules exception. If you can attack, you threaten, unless something says you can attack even though you don't. If you don't threaten, this is because you can't attack. Threatening is a consequence of being able to attack, and so if you don't threaten then it must be a consequence of not being able to attack, with the caveat that sometimes you can attack without threatening, because the general rule in the PH is not actually true for all cases. Those cases where it is not true are specifically called out, however, so we can call it a rule so long as we acknowledge that there are other rules which cause it to not be accurate.
Zanzibax 05-31-07, 10:50 AM	I've not followed this, and I have failed to fully understand each point in the thread so apologies if this has been covered. From my limited understanding, it appears to be as simple as this: The PH says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." This is actually not universally true, because of the whip, so correctly stated, the definition is: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, unless another rule allows you to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten." Therefore every square into which you can make a melee attack is threatened by you, unless there is some other rule which permits you to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten. Whoa. Threatening is a consequence of your ability to make a melee attack. Melee attacks are not necessarily a consequence of your ability to threaten. Therefore if a square isn't threatened by you then you cannot make a melee attack (unless the rules tell you that you can). Wrong, this would make a melee attack, a consequence of your ability to threaten, the exact transposition error Tim and MommyWAO insist on making. The conclusion is not a 'transposition of words when reading the rules'. It is the exact same rule, read from the other direction. It is impossible to have a rule which says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, unless another rule alters this one" and to simultaneously have the ability to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten without the operation of a rules exception. It sure is exactly that transposition. Your ability to make a melee attack doesn't depend on your ability to threaten. What does depend upon your ability to threaten is your ability to make an Attack of Opportunity. If you can attack, you threaten, unless something says you can attack even though you don't. If you don't threaten, this is because you can't attack. Wrong. The error is more obvious when you apply your understanding above to the definition in the glossary for "flanking". In order to flank, you must threaten the square occupied by the person to be flanked.
Zanzibax 05-31-07, 10:57 AM	Do you see how your logic would prohibit melee attacks *unless* you were flanking? As you couldn't threaten *unless* you were flanking by the same token you would not be able to make a melee attack *unless* you were threatening. ...and now you can't threaten *unless* you were flanking.... I'm sure there are worse consequences if you adopt this broken line of thought. So let's understand that Threatening is dependent upon making a melee attack and not the other way around, and understand that flanking is dependent upon threatening...and not the other way around.
pedr 05-31-07, 11:03 AM	Perhaps you've fleshed out those points previously and I've missed them. If so, I apologise. However taken on its own your post is merely assertions, not backed up by any deduction or explanation. You assert: melee attacks are not necessarily a consequence of your ability to threaten, but you don't explain how it is possible to have "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" and "You can make a melee attack into squares you do not threaten" simultaneously. They are inconsistent statements, which cannot both be true at the same time. In fact, the first statement (a near-quotation from the PH, if not the exact wording) is inaccurate, hence my modification of it above, but it can only be ignored where the rules specifically say to ignore it, as it is a written rule.
Samwise 05-31-07, 11:21 AM	From my limited understanding, it appears to be as simple as this: The PH says: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." This is actually not universally true, It does not have to be universally true for it to be a rule. And it seems Zanzibax beat me to the rest. All I can add is to repeat looking at the specific rules regarding the "exceptions" that people continue to refuse address. Whips: The entry says you treat it as a melee reach weapon but you don't threaten. This word order is critical. It does not say you do not threaten but you can make a melee attack anyway. That has a completely different meaning. Grapples: The entry says you do not threaten. It does not say anything else in that sentence other than you do not threaten. In a separate entry, it places limits on your ability to make melee attacks, including how many melee weapons you can use, their size, who you can attack, and an attack penalty. Blood Spiked Charger: Is not in the PHB. Until a new version of the PHB is produced, it would be impossible for any reference to this to appear in the PHB. Arrow Mind: The same as BSC. Also consider some things from the FAQ: "Strictly speaking, if you don’t threaten an enemy, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against that enemy." - page 58, discussing AoOs on creatures with reach. "For example, unless you wield a weapon that allows you to make a trip attack, trip attacks are unarmed attacks; a character who doesn’t threaten while unarmed couldn’t make an unarmed trip attack as an attack of opportunity." - page 62, on tripping as an AoO "If you’re armed and you’re in a position to make a melee attack against a foe, you threaten that foe (see Threatened Squares under the Attacks of Opportunity section in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). To be armed you must wield a weapon or have natural weaponry. If your reach is 0, you can threaten foes in the same square with you only." - page 64, creatures with 0 reach "Likewise, the technical definition of an attack of opportunity requires that you threaten the opponent in question (see PHB page 137)." - page 80, AoOs with spiritual weapon I'm not really sure how much more clearly it has to be said. Threatening determines if you can AoO. If you do not threaten it is not because you can't melee attack, it is because you can not reach (PHB 137), or because some other rule states you do not threaten. Read how the other rules are written! Total Defense: "You can defend yourself as a standard action. . . . You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense." Can you melee attack? No. It takes a standard action to melee attack and you have used yours to use total defense. Do you threaten? It doesn't say you do not threaten, so you do. But you can't make AoOs. It must include this because you do still threaten, and that is used to determine if you can AoO. And none of that matters because cleave still does not say you must be able to threaten to take the extra melee attack.
solbergb 05-31-07, 11:33 AM	Can you melee attack? No. It takes a standard action to melee attack and you have used yours to use total defense. Do you threaten? It doesn't say you do not threaten, so you do. But you can't make AoOs. It must include this because you do still threaten, and that is used to determine if you can AoO. And none of that matters because cleave still does not say you must be able to threaten to take the extra melee attack. This is an interesting point which I'll have to consider with flanking in future. There are several places where it says "you can't take an AOO" but doesn't say "you don't threaten" full defense, being blinded, enemy with full concealment and enemy having cover. Which would mean that you threaten for purpose of flanking, but not for AOO, I guess. A two people in a grapple though, can't be used for a flank. These subtle distinctions on flanking could be important sometimes. Not that these musings have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but I finally know how to rule on flanking when one flanker is blind or the flanked person is invisible. I think the person who said "threaten is dependent on melee but melee is not dependent on threaten" said it better than I did, with my nattering about equivlaence and implications. That's what I was trying to express. The glossary entry doesn't contradict this point of view, and indeed supports it.
Samwise 05-31-07, 11:39 AM	Perhaps you've fleshed out those points previously and I've missed them. If so, I apologise. However taken on its own your post is merely assertions, not backed up by any deduction or explanation. Read post 308 by solbergb and post 315 by me where we explain how, by transposition, you are unable to melee attack unless flanking. You assert: melee attacks are not necessarily a consequence of your ability to threaten, but you don't explain how it is possible to have "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack" and "You can make a melee attack into squares you do not threaten" simultaneously. They are inconsistent statements, which cannot both be true at the same time. In fact, the first statement (a near-quotation from the PH, if not the exact wording) is inaccurate, hence my modification of it above, but it can only be ignored where the rules specifically say to ignore it, as it is a written rule. They are incompatible. That is why the second is not a written rule anywhere. You can make melee attacks into squares you do not threaten - with a whip, in a grapple, with cleave and BSC. Only three cases so far, but there may be more if someone decides to go looking for every single situation in which you don't threaten but could conceivably be suddenly allowed to make a melee attack.
Mommy was an Orc 05-31-07, 03:05 PM	Once again, this is stated very clearly and very simply in the rules. The answer is no. You can only melee attack another person in the grapple. I'm not entirely sure where it says that. It describes how you may attack the person you're grappling and how you may attack them, but at no time does it limit you only to the actions listed - you can presumably talk as a free action when grappled, even though it doesn't list it. Nor does the section on attack your opponent actually state that you may only attack the person you're grappling(which would be straightforward enough) In fact, the section on pinning actually prohibits you from using a weapon against another opponent, so unless the rules somewhere else specifically ban you from using a weapon outside a grapple, you must be allowed to swing outside the grapple at someone. (edit: which if it isn't clear, if you remove the ability to threaten as Grapple does, you remove the ability to make a melee attack, so it isn't a problem for my/Timlagor's interpretation)
Timlagor 05-31-07, 03:48 PM	Solbergh: you can threaten but not be able to take an AoO. You still threaten There is no state of "not threatening for an AoO". I brought up grappling because the restriction is: "Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling." Those of you who insist on basic mistakes of logic will run into a problem here.
Samwise 05-31-07, 05:22 PM	I'm not entirely sure where it says that. It describes how you may attack the person you're grappling and how you may attack them, but at no time does it limit you only to the actions listed - you can presumably talk as a free action when grappled, even though it doesn't list it. Nor does the section on attack your opponent actually state that you may only attack the person you're grappling(which would be straightforward enough) Probably the first line: "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple) you can perform any of the following actions. And the section on attack your opponent does actually state that it must be against the person you are grappling: "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling." Since at no point does it say you can attack an opponent outside the grapple, you can't. In fact, the section on pinning actually prohibits you from using a weapon against another opponent, so unless the rules somewhere else specifically ban you from using a weapon outside a grapple, you must be allowed to swing outside the grapple at someone. It does? Where? "When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round. While you are pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. At your opponent's option, you may also be unable to speak. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you're still grappling." There is no prohibition on using a weapon against another opponent there. So there is no rules issue there at all, except with your created rule.
Mommy was an Orc 05-31-07, 05:37 PM	Probably the first line: "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple) you can perform any of the following actions. And the section on attack your opponent does actually state that it must be against the person you are grappling: "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling." Since at no point does it say you can attack an opponent outside the grapple, you can't. So presumably, as at no point does it say you can drop an item, you can't do that? At no point does it say these are all the actions you can do. Stop trying to add rules here Sam, that don't exist :) It does? Where? "When an opponent has pinned you, you are held immobile (but not helpless) for 1 round. While you are pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. At your opponent's option, you may also be unable to speak. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you're still grappling." There is no prohibition on using a weapon against another opponent there. Try reading the previous paragraph. If you pin an opponent, "you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or any other character)" As they felt the need to put in 'any other character', clearly, your interpretation means that we're allowed to use Greatswords while grappling. Just not against the person we're grappling or after we've pinned them.
solbergb 05-31-07, 05:43 PM	Solbergh: you can threaten but not be able to take an AoO. You still threaten There is no state of "not threatening for an AoO". I brought up grappling because the restriction is: "Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling." Those of you who insist on basic mistakes of logic will run into a problem here. Yes - if blinded you can be threatening but not be allowed to take an AOO. You do, however, provide a flank. In both cases being able to make a melee attack is a necessary condition of being able to threaten. Being able to threaten though is not a necessary condition of being able to attack, as the fact that you can attack others in a grapple even though you don't threaten them (PHB and FAQ) shows.
Samwise 05-31-07, 05:43 PM	Solbergh: you can threaten but not be able to take an AoO. You still threaten There is no state of "not threatening for an AoO". And you can be able to make a melee attack but not threaten. There is no state of "threatening but not being able to make a melee attack," except for a single spell added after the PHB was written that specifies it is an exception to the rule of having to be in melee weapon reach to threaten. I brought up grappling because the restriction is: "Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling." Those of you who insist on basic mistakes of logic will run into a problem here. Grappling doesn't prohibit you from making melee attacks. The rules for grappling also don't state that the limits on making melee attacks are a consequence of not threatening. So indeed, your basic mistake of logic is causing a serious problem for you. It would resolve itself if you stopped transposing phrases in a sentence and thinking you aren't changing the meaning. Oh, and try basic math instead: The set of squares you can reach is the same as the set of squares you can melee attack into. The set of squares you can melee attack into (which is the same as the set of squares you can reach) contains the subset of squares you can threaten. The subset of squares you threaten contains the subset of squares you can AoO.
Samwise 05-31-07, 05:56 PM	So presumably, as at no point does it say you can drop an item, you can't do that? At no point does it say these are all the actions you can do. Stop trying to add rules here Sam, that don't exist :) I guess you can't. I suspect you are able to take free actions though, even if it doesn't otherwise say it. And I don't need to create rules MWAO, that is all on you when neither RAW nor RAI want to agree with your interpetation. Try reading the previous paragraph. If you pin an opponent, "you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or any other character)" As they felt the need to put in 'any other character', clearly, your interpretation means that we're allowed to use Greatswords while grappling. Just not against the person we're grappling or after we've pinned them. Not at all. Apparently you have conveniently forgotten that you can draw a light weapon and use it against a third party in the same grapple. Stop trying to ignore clearly written rules as if they don't exist MWAO :D
Mommy was an Orc 05-31-07, 06:07 PM	I guess you can't. I suspect you are able to take free actions though, even if it doesn't otherwise say it. And I don't need to create rules MWAO, that is all on you when neither RAW nor RAI want to agree with your interpetation. The glossary agrees with me - it is on you to prove that there's a reason you should ignore a definition. That's the advantage my interpretation here is - you can drop an item, but yet you can't make a melee attack against someone who isn't grappling you. Wrong interpretations often create problems along the lines you're now experiencing, where you're forced to justify not being able to drop something. Not at all. Apparently you have conveniently forgotten that you can draw a light weapon and use it against a third party in the same grapple. Stop trying to ignore clearly written rules as if they don't exist MWAO :D It doesn't say 'you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or anyone grappling you)', it says you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or any other character) As the previous section doesn't expressly forbid attacking other characters, you've got a problem.
Samwise 05-31-07, 06:32 PM	The glossary agrees with me - it is on you to prove that there's a reason you should ignore a definition. The glossary does not agree with you. It simply does not say what you are asserting. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show any other rule that agrees with your inverted definition. That's the advantage my interpretation here is - you can drop an item, but yet you can't make a melee attack against someone who isn't grappling you. Dropping items is hardly a significant issue, or proof that you can casually transpose phrases in definitions and have correct rules. Wrong interpretations often create problems along the lines you're now experiencing, where you're forced to justify not being able to drop something. I don't have to justify anything. The rules are what the rules are. You are the one trying to change them. It doesn't say 'you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or anyone grappling you)', it says you can't draw or use a weapon (against the pinned character or any other character) As the previous section doesn't expressly forbid attacking other characters, you've got a problem. It only allows for attacking other people in the grapple. You keep trying to ignore rules and create your own, or cite the lack of your own created rules. That isn't how you read a rule book.
Timlagor 05-31-07, 09:27 PM	Yes - if blinded you can be threatening but not be allowed to take an AOO. You do, however, provide a flank. In both cases being able to make a melee attack is a necessary condition of being able to threaten. Being able to threaten though is not a necessary condition of being able to attack, as the fact that you can attack others in a grapple even though you don't threaten them (PHB and FAQ) shows. Being able to attack others in a grapple shows that there are specific rules for attacking someone within a grapple. It shows nothing else.
Samwise 05-31-07, 10:33 PM	Being able to attack others in a grapple shows that there are specific rules for attacking someone within a grapple. It shows nothing else. Yes! Exactly! It shows nothing else. It definitely does not show that you can't melee attack because you don't threaten.
Mommy was an Orc 05-31-07, 10:58 PM	The glossary does not agree with you. It simply does not say what you are asserting. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show any other rule that agrees with your inverted definition. Threaten is the ability to attack in melee without changing space. There's nothing inverted about that. You're confusing the glossary with the text - which you think we're inverting for some reason without explanation. If p->q, not q, not p is not inverting. Sam plays D&D. Here is a person who does not play D&D. We know this person is not Sam. By how you use logic, you might actually not play D&D. I don't have to justify anything. The rules are what the rules are. You are the one trying to change them. Either justify your position or we can simply accept that you can't justify it. Pretty straightforward. It only allows for attacking other people in the grapple. Again, where does it say that?
Mommy was an Orc 05-31-07, 11:00 PM	Yes! Exactly! It shows nothing else. It definitely does not show that you can't melee attack because you don't threaten. Great, then we're agreed. By your interpretation, you can swing a Greatsword at an opponent you're not grappling while grappling someone else - because the grappling rules show nothing else.
Samwise 05-31-07, 11:24 PM	Threaten is the ability to attack in melee without changing space. There's nothing inverted about that. You're confusing the glossary with the text - which you think we're inverting for some reason without explanation. Yes there is something inverted about that. You do not lose the ability to make a melee attack if you do not have the ability to threaten. That is the inversion you are introducing into the rule. If p->q, not q, not p is not inverting. The rule is not a logical expression. The rule is a game rule. You can not treat it as a logical expression. Sam plays D&D. Here is a person who does not play D&D. We know this person is not Sam. There are quite a few people named Sam who do not play D&D. By how you use logic, you might actually not play D&D. Not at all. But I might also play (or used to play when I had the time) several other RPGs. By your logic, I am suddenly not Sam when I play Champions. Either justify your position or we can simply accept that you can't justify it. Pretty straightforward. I don't have to. The rules which I cited again and again but which you constantly ignore state the rule clearly. I did however express it in more basic math, demonstrating how the squares you can threaten is a subset of the squares you can melee attack. You have not provided any answer to that, as you have not provided any answer to when I showed how transposing phrases means you can not melee attack unless you flank, as you have never provided any answer to when I noted the specific text of not threatening with a whip, and indeed not provided answers to pretty much everything else I have directly demonstrated with quotes from the rules. Your response to being confronted with the rules is to not reply, and simply assert your revision of a RAW and insist that nothing directly contradicts it so it must be true. You can waste effort disproving your own negative. I have quoted the rules directly and you have never refuted anything other than by your fiat. You have not established your position in the least. Again, where does it say that? Again, right in the rules that you are ignoring. Great, then we're agreed. By your interpretation, you can swing a Greatsword at an opponent you're not grappling while grappling someone else - because the grappling rules show nothing else. No, by your deliberately ignoring a rule and pretending it is my interpretation that is true. By my citing of the specific rules under grapple that is absolutely not true, as I clearly stated several times. Do not try and confuse people that your deliberate ignoring of any rules is my interpretation of them.
Mommy was an Orc 06-01-07, 02:37 PM	(edit: just leaving the really funny part in - hard to argue my point better than Sam just did by using grammar in the way he did) No, by your deliberately ignoring a rule and pretending it is my interpretation that is true. By my citing of the specific rules under grapple that is absolutely not true, as I clearly stated several times. Do not try and confuse people that your deliberate ignoring of any rules is my interpretation of them. What's particularly hilarious about this, is that you're using the exact same use of language for grapple that we're doing for threaten. Notice the similarity between: When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. As any old wargamer can tell you, there's a difference between can and must. Except when it doesn't suit your argument...
Zanzibax 06-01-07, 05:55 PM	(edit: just leaving the really funny part in - hard to argue my point better than Sam just did by using grammar in the way he did) What's particularly hilarious about this, is that you're using the exact same use of language for grapple that we're doing for threaten. Notice the similarity between: When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. As any old wargamer can tell you, there's a difference between can and must. Except when it doesn't suit your argument... Ok, and now we've arrived at the fundamental reason why you hold your flawed understanding of the otherwise clear rule: misunderstandings about language usage. No, the language usage is nothing alike. I can now retire from the thread happy that I understand your points of view, and confident that I can retain my own while gaming.
Samwise 06-01-07, 09:49 PM	What's particularly hilarious about this, is that you're using the exact same use of language for grapple that we're doing for threaten. Notice the similarity between: When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. As any old wargamer can tell you, there's a difference between can and must. Except when it doesn't suit your argument... Except no where did I say you must attack someone in a grapple with a melee attack to the exclusion of any other action. So as any old wargamer can tell you, you are still making up my position. And as any old wargamer can tell you, you still haven't refuted any of my other examples.
JJeff 08-01-07, 08:46 PM	ok... guys... Did anyone every get an answer to the original question? I can't seem to find out with pages upon pages of arguing about grammar and logical facillicies.... Is it a strength Bonus or Strength score?
Zanzibax 08-01-07, 09:14 PM	ok... guys... Did anyone every get an answer to the original question? I can't seem to find out with pages upon pages of arguing about grammar and logical facillicies.... Is it a strength Bonus or Strength score? It's the modifier due to your strength. Generally expressed as (Strength -10)/2
JJeff 08-01-07, 10:36 PM	Is there an official source for this answer? Or is this just the opinion of the community?
bitznarf 08-01-07, 11:51 PM	No official source that I know of.
Eric Anondson 08-02-07, 02:32 AM	I know I put in a request to Sage Advice for an answer. No response. I didn't bother with WotC Customer Sercive though.
Timlagor 08-02-07, 04:02 AM	ok... guys... Did anyone every get an answer to the original question? I can't seem to find out with pages upon pages of arguing about grammar and logical facillicies.... Is it a strength Bonus or Strength score? There is no official answer. Expect most GMs to limit it to Strength Bonus.
KarmaInferno 08-02-07, 11:57 AM	For what it's worth, WotC Customer Service indicates that Blood Spiked Charger issue about strength score vs strength modifier is "probably a typo", and that they forwarded it to the design team. They did not, however, actually tell me which one to use, just that it was probably a typo. -karma
Zanzibax 08-02-07, 02:58 PM	Occam's Razor, Kharma. :rolleyes:
Istaran 08-02-07, 09:06 PM	Please correct me if I'm wrong Samwise, but you seem to be claiming all of the following can be simultaneously true: A) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. B) You can make a melee attack into a particular square. C) You do not threaten any square (including the square you are attacking into). Obviously if B and C are both true, you are attacking a square you do not threaten, which is an exception to A. But A is one of the rules of the game, and therefore you need a rules text exception to allow this to be true. Otherwise you are breaking the rule. Whip is such an exception. Fine. No arguments there. With a whip, A, B, and C can all be true. Yay. Unarmed strike is not an exception, apparently, because it is a special case not really a melee attack attack.. I do not know why this would be the case. I figure it is like whip. Maybe someone will clarify, but if so please do so in a PM, as it doesn't need to clutter this thread any more than it already is. Of course, an exception may be interpreted from the text of the feat in question; the rule is an exceptional case which causes you to not threaten a particular square, despite the fact that you can attack into it. Much like whip. Yay. This in no way negates the fact that "You threaten all squares which you can make melee attacks into" is equivalent to "You cannot make melee attacks into squares you do not threaten". It does however provide an exception to the rule.
Samwise 08-02-07, 09:27 PM	Please correct me if I'm wrong Samwise, You are wrong. I've explained why in numerous previous posts.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 12:29 AM	This in no way negates the fact that "You threaten all squares which you can make melee attacks into" is equivalent to "You cannot make melee attacks into squares you do not threaten". It does however provide an exception to the rule. This is proven false using set theory. You are using invalid logic.. ________________________________________ | | | Melee attacks | | | | | | | | ______________________ | | | | | | | Threatening | | | | | | | | | | | ______________________ | |______________________________________| If you threaten, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You can however make melee attacks without threatening. You have confused "can" with "must" The wording is similar with "flank"...as has already been pointed out...and your misattributed argument's logic would use that language to deny any melee attacks unless you flank. Have fun.
Timlagor 08-03-07, 02:04 AM	Where did that "If you threaten" come from?
Istaran 08-03-07, 02:18 AM	You make a melee attack into a square. Since you do, obviously you can. Since you can make a melee attack into that square, it is one of the squares into which you can make a melee attack. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Therefore you threaten that square. For the first line to be true and the last line to be false, one of those steps has to break down. You do not make a melee attack that you cannot make. Of that I am quite certain. You do not make a melee attack into a square that you cannot make a melee attack into. Of that I am quite certain. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That is straight from the rulebook. It is however the weakest link in the logic chain. So unless the rule does not hold true for a particular case, it follows quite simply and glaringly obviously that the fact you do make a melee attack into a particular square is proof that you do in fact threaten that square at that time. There are exceptions that cause the rule not to hold. They are explicitly stated. To move this to a situation where it would matter, concider Snake's Swiftness. That spell allows the subject to immediately make a melee or ranged attack on the caster's turn. Suppose that Max the Barbarian has used his full round action to smack someone with his shield, and therefore does not threaten Bob the Bear who is adjacent to him, per the feat. 1 - Max the Barbarian does not threaten any squares in the set of all squares. The square Bob the Bear is in is in the set of all squares, therefore it is not threatened by Max the Barbarian. 2 - Max the Barbarian attacks Bob the Bear with a melee attack due to Snake's Swiftness. Therefore, the square Bob the Bear is in is in the set of squares Max the Barbarian can attack into. Therefore either the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." applies and the square Bob the Bear is in is threatened by Max the Barbarian, or the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." does not apply for some reason. You can wave your hands and say "This is proven false using set theory. You are using invalid logic..", proving you are paying no attention to my argument nor its valid logic, or you can say "You have confused "can" with "must" " proving that you have in fact not paid attention to my argument nor its valid logic, or perhaps you could actually pay attention. If the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." applies, then any square into which you can make a melee attack is a threatened square. Either the rule does not apply, or there does not exist a square into which you can make a melee attack, but which you do not threaten. It is only when an exception to the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." is relevent to the situation at hand that it is possible to make a melee attack into a square while at the same time not threatening it. For the rule to be applied, the set of threatened squares must be a subset of the set of squares into which you can make a melee attack. For any given square, one or more of the following must be true: a) You threathen the square. b) You cannot make a melee attack into the square. c) Some exception is applicable to the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." If you paid attention to my post, I clearly provided an easy and somewhat plausible way out; that is that the exception to the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." is provided by the fact that the feat in question removes all squares that would otherwise be in the set of threatened squares from the set of threatened squares, without removing said squares from the set of squares into which you can make a melee attack. However, that is a different line of reasoning than pretending that logic does not apply in a very basic and straight-foreward way to the clear and obvious meaning of the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.", creating the necessity that there in fact be an exception to the rule in place in order for a melee attack to be made into a square without that square also being, in fact, threatened.
Istaran 08-03-07, 02:52 AM	You are wrong. I've explained why in numerous previous posts. I will grant you have certainly posted numerous times, though you have yet to actually explain why I am wrong. You have yet to explain how it is possible to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten while threatening all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You just pretend that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." means "If you threaten a square, it is among the squares you can make a melee attack into" when it actually directly means "if you can make a melee attack into a square, it is among the squares you threaten". This whole 13 page (so far) argument has been over the fact that a small number of people are unable to grasp that it is not possible to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten while simultaneously threatening all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You go through all manner of amazing contortions of illogic to try and explain how you can fulfill the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." while still being able to attack into a square you do not threaten. It is quite simple - if you can make a melee attack into the square, and you do not threaten the square, then an exception to "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." must be applicable. If no such exception is applicable, and you make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten, you are breaking the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." by not threatening a square into which you can make a melee attack, or else by making a melee attack which you cannot. None of this logic can be made to suggest flank is required to make an attack because nowhere in flank does it say "you flank all opponents against which you can make a melee attack". If it did say "you flank all opponents against which you can make a melee attack", then yes you would have to flank an opponent to make a melee attack, because if you could make a melee attack against a particular opponent then you would, in fact, flank them. But that is not the rule, now is it? "When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner." To correctly apply the relevant logic, if you do not recieve a +2 flanking bonus then you are not making a melee attack against an opponent that is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite boarder or opposite corner. If you -are- making a melee attack against a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent's opposite border or opposite corner -and- you do not get a +2 flanking bonus then it must be the case that an exception to the rule is in effect. These exceptions include the Knight's Code of Conduct and the Improved Uncanny Dodge class feature, as well as certain monsters' racial traits.
clannagh 08-03-07, 03:00 AM	Applying occam's razor though .. exceptions should be eliminated ... and in the case the only way to eliminate exceptions is to revise the general rule. Generally speaking any rule that has exceptions smacks of the "ad hoc" and should be carefully scrutinised to see if it really is a rule at all.
Istaran 08-03-07, 03:44 AM	Applying occam's razor though .. exceptions should be eliminated ... and in the case the only way to eliminate exceptions is to revise the general rule. Generally speaking any rule that has exceptions smacks of the "ad hoc" and should be carefully scrutinised to see if it really is a rule at all. D&D consists of a moderately large number of rules and an astounding number of exceptions. That is how the game is designed. Countless feats, spells, items, and even other rules spell out the exceptions to the general rules. D&D in general smacks of the 'ad hoc'. If you want to declare "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." and its stricter equivalent, the definition of threaten in the glossary, to be not rules then do you have any basis from which to ever claim you do in fact threaten? Rather, "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." is a rule which has exceptions (stated at the location of the rules item that causes an exception to exist). In any case in which it applies, it prevents you from not threatening a square into which you can make a melee attack. For you to be able to make a melee attack into a square, and to not threaten that square at that time, you must be in one of the exception cases. If D&D were written in a way that none of the basic rules had exceptions, we wouldn't bother playing it.. that's really what makes it the game it is; the ability to set up your character to make use of exceptions to the more basic rules, and dealing with enemies you create exceptions to the more basic rules is what keeps the game fresh and ever-changing.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 09:43 AM	Where did that "If you threaten" come from? Characters do not *always* threaten. But *IF* they can make a melee attack, they do *sometimes* threaten.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 09:47 AM	You make a melee attack into a square. Since you do, obviously you can. Since you can make a melee attack into that square, it is one of the squares into which you can make a melee attack. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Therefore you threaten that square. For the first line to be true and the last line to be false, one of those steps has to break down. You do not make a melee attack that you cannot make. Of that I am quite certain. You do not make a melee attack into a square that you cannot make a melee attack into. Of that I am quite certain. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. That is straight from the rulebook. It is however the weakest link in the logic chain. So unless the rule does not hold true for a particular case, it follows quite simply and glaringly obviously that the fact you do make a melee attack into a particular square is proof that you do in fact threaten that square at that time. There are exceptions that cause the rule not to hold. They are explicitly stated. There are many, general situations, where you can make a melee attack but do not threaten. Several have been listed in this dull thread.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 10:03 AM	Applying occam's razor though .. exceptions should be eliminated ... and in the case the only way to eliminate exceptions is to revise the general rule. Generally speaking any rule that has exceptions smacks of the "ad hoc" and should be carefully scrutinised to see if it really is a rule at all. They changed it. This particular off-topic threadling is moot: threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space. A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. For Medium or Small creature this usually includes all squares adjacent to its space. Larger creatures threaten more squares, while smaller creatures may not threaten any squares except their own threatened square: A square within an opponent’s reach. Generally, characters threaten all adjacent squares, though reach weapons can alter this range. Certain actions provoke attack of opportunity when taken within a threatened square Have a nice day. :)
Samwise 08-03-07, 10:40 AM	This whole 13 page (so far) argument has been over the fact that a small number of people are unable to grasp that it is not possible to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten while simultaneously threatening all squares into which you can make a melee attack. You go through all manner of amazing contortions of illogic to try and explain how you can fulfill the rule "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." while still being able to attack into a square you do not threaten. No, it is because you are unable to grasp the hierarchy of rules involved, and where the exception intervenes and applies. Your logical train is what is flawed, not the rules, or what I have said regarding them. In this case, the exemption exists in a feat where it states you no longer threaten. Nothing in that implies or mandates that you may not attack. That there is virtually no way you could actually attack while not threatening is a consequence of other rules, not an absolute prohibition because of the specific rules regarding the ability to make melee attacks or how to threaten.
Istaran 08-03-07, 02:48 PM	No, it is because you are unable to grasp the hierarchy of rules involved, and where the exception intervenes and applies. I grasp the hierarchy just fine thank you. The general rule says that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". That rule therefore applies at all times that exceptions are not applicable. I have merely argued that an applicable exception is required for the rule to not hold. If an exeption is applicable, the rule need not hold. If no exception is applicable, the rule must hold. In order for the rule to hold you are required to threaten all squares into which you can make melee attacks. If the rule holds it cannot be possible to make a melee attack into a particular square while not threatening it. Your logical train is what is flawed, not the rules, or what I have said regarding them. The logical train is perfectly correct thank you, and even contains the necessary lee-way to apply to all possible situations in D&D. The rules themselves are perfectly fine in this case. What you have said about them is that "You threaten all squares into which you can make melee attacks" does not specify that you are unable to make a melee attack into a square you do not threaten. That is patently false. That is broken logic. Giving examples such as whips and others does not speak to this truth; rather those are cases where "You threaten all squares into which you can make melee attacks" is a specifically exempted rule. In this case, the exemption exists in a feat where it states you no longer threaten. Concidering that I said as much in my post, why would you accuse me of being unable to grasp the hierarchy of rules and the application of exemptions. As I stated, if this is a valid exeption to the rule then you can, in fact, attack without threatening under the situation created by this rule. I have some suspicion that it may have been meant to mean you are not allowed to make further attacks until your next turn, but there is nothing unreasonable about reading it as merely an exemption to the normal threatening rules. Indeed, I would run it as merely an exemption to the threatening rules on the basis that it is the simplest and most direct extrapolation from the text. Nothing in that implies or mandates that you may not attack. If you take the feat to be an exemption to the threatening rules, then you are fine and can attack. If you take the feat to keep you within the normal threatening rules (as MWAO has done) then it clearly implies you cannot attack. That there is virtually no way you could actually attack while not threatening is a consequence of other rules, not an absolute prohibition because of the specific rules regarding the ability to make melee attacks or how to threaten. The rules on how to threaten prohibit you from not threatening a square when you can make a melee attack into it. It is a direct consequence of the rule that has been quoted on this thread uncountablely many times. It is not an 'absolute' prohibition, only in so much as there are specific, defined, exceptions to that rule. There is a valid argument to be made that the situation created by this feat is a valid exception to the rule. My argument was merely that such an exception is required for you to be able to attack into a square without also threatening that square. You have argued otherwise repeatedly and vehemently throughout this thread. Your reply to me just now is the first time I've seen you try to claim the feat in question as the necessary exception, rather than use contortions of illogic to claim no exception is needed. ------------------- Zanzibax: Thank you for highlighting the 'typically', 'generally' and 'usually' in the PHB text, clearly showing that the parts of the threatening text that are subject to change and inconsistant are the shape of the region of threatened squares. It makes it easier to see that the part that is not subject to change (except when exceptions to the rule apply) includes "threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space." which is precisely the rules text relevant to the conversation. Without your highlighting the fact that the qualifiers are in a different portion of the rules, someone might be tempted to think that the rule was porous and less than absolute. Clearly we see that the non-absolute part is that the squares you threaten are those within your natural reach. Note that there is no such uncertainty as to whether threaten means "to be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space", nor whether "You threaten all spaces into which you can make a melee attack". There are many, general situations, where you can make a melee attack but do not threaten. Several have been listed in this dull thread. QFT. As per the hierarchical nature of the rules, specific rules items are able to override the rule for specific cases. ----------------- Just to make people's heads explode... If you are wielding a whip and a spiked shield, use the spiked shield attack thingy that started this whole mess of a thread, and are then grappled before you turn, and then someone casts Snake's Swiftness on you, can you use that free attack to hit someone 15' away with your whip?
Samwise 08-03-07, 02:58 PM	I grasp the hierarchy just fine thank you. But I must twist everything to intrepret the rules my way? No thank you. The general rule says that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". That rule therefore applies at all times that exceptions are not applicable. But the general rule does not say "You must threaten a square in order to make a melee attack into it." So the printed rule most certainly applies unless an exemption is stated, but your inverse never applies because it is simply not a rule, no matter how much you try and claim it is. Again, I've explained this before, I am done explaining it again on a thread that should have stayed dead.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 03:11 PM	I grasp the hierarchy just fine thank you. The general rule says that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack". It doesn't say that anymore.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 03:17 PM	Note that there is no such uncertainty as to whether threaten means "to be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space", nor whether "You threaten all spaces into which you can make a melee attack". Clearly, there's no uncertainty about *something*, but that would be about you, personally, and not relevant to the discussion. Just let me know where you game so I can avoid rulings that seem utterly irrational to myself.
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 03:20 PM	Eh...this was asked earlier in the thread...but I don't think you read it: What could the wording possibly state that would allow you to understand that threatening is an aspect of being capable of making a melee attack that doesn't actually require a melee character threatening to dictate the ability to make a melee attack?
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 03:21 PM	Just to make people's heads explode... If you are wielding a whip and a spiked shield, use the spiked shield attack thingy that started this whole mess of a thread, and are then grappled before you turn, and then someone casts Snake's Swiftness on you, can you use that free attack to hit someone 15' away with your whip? You're confused about the rules for grappling now?
bitznarf 08-03-07, 03:38 PM	Zanzibax, could you please group all your replies into one message in the future?
TWG_Prometheus 08-03-07, 04:18 PM	Did we really, really have to start this up again?
Istaran 08-03-07, 04:37 PM	But the general rule does not say "You must threaten a square in order to make a melee attack into it." So the printed rule most certainly applies unless an exemption is stated, but your inverse never applies because it is simply not a rule, no matter how much you try and claim it is. My statement is not the inverse, converse, reverse or any other irrelevancy of the rule as written. It is the contrapositive. Look it up on wikipedia. If a statement is true, then its contrapositive is always true (and vice versa). If a statement is false, its contrapositive is always false (and vice versa). Actually, more specifically my statement is the contrapositive of the statement "If you can make a melee attack into a square, then you threaten that square." If there is an exception to that statement, then that exception is a counterexample to "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." Could you try to give one example of a case in which a) you can make a melee attack into a square. and b) you do not threaten that square. and c) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Every single time you will find that at least one of those statements does not hold true. Without fail. It is not possible for all three to be true simultaneously. Because any time you can make a melee attack into square X and you do not threaten square X you do not threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, because you do not threaten square X and you can make a melee attack into square X. It doesn't say that anymore. It says that exact wording the printed v3.5 PHB, in the d20srd.org, in the d20 SRD as hosted on the wizards website and is not errata'd in the official errata. So. What does it say now? What could the wording possibly state that would allow you to understand that threatening is an aspect of being capable of making a melee attack that doesn't actually require a melee character threatening to dictate the ability to make a melee attack? It could state "Generally, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." In that case it would be obvious that any rule restricting you ability to threaten a square which does not explicitly limit your ability to make a melee attack has an effect only on threatening. They would not even be exceptions to the rule as such, but rather cases which demonstrate why the word "generally" was used. As the rule is actually written, in order for a situation to exist in which you do not threaten but can make a melee attack it has to be an actual exception to the rule. Just let me know where you game so I can avoid rulings that seem utterly irrational to myself. Earth. It's a fun place, and mostly harmless. Some of its inhabitants even understand basic elementary logic and can apply it to sentences written in English. You're confused about the rules for grappling now? Snake's Swiftness grants the target an extra melee attack. You don't threaten any targets for three different reasons in the above example. The grapple rules explain what you can do in a grapple: If You’re Grappling When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses. It then proceeds with a list. That neither says you can attack an opponent 15' away, nor does it say you cannot. Possibly by "you can perform any of the following actions" they meant you cannot perform any other actions. But what if another ability explicitly allows you to make one melee attack? No restrictions are placed on that attack by that ability (I checked). It doesn't say your target has to be in reach, but that is already within the rules for melee attack and not disputed here. The effects of grapple say : Grappling Consequences While you’re grappling, your ability to attack others and defend yourself is limited. No Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling. No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.) No Movement: You can’t move normally while grappling. You may, however, make an opposed grapple check (see below) to move while grappling. That does not say you cannot make attacks into other squares, it only says you do not threaten those squares. If not threatening does not prevent an attack then it certainly looks to me like you can attack from within a grapple. Even if you take the list of actions that can be taken within a grapple to be exclusive and exhaustive (meaning you could not, for example, change draconic auras during a grapple) does that mean you can not take a free attack granted to you by a spell? If not, which rule prohibits you from doing so? Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. The attack your opponent in grapple option does not anywhere state that it is a melee attack, and thus seems to have no bearing on the relationship between threatened squares and the ability to make melee attacks. My question is: Are you able to make a whip attack from within a grapple when you are explicitly given one free melee (or ranged) attack immediately by a spell? If not, what rule would prevent you from doing so? I looked and did not find, provided we ignore the possibility that not being able to threaten prevents you from making melee attacks as well.
Redfist 08-03-07, 05:51 PM	I have a gut feeling that a prize is offered for getting debate threads to 15 pages but for the life of me I've never heard what that prize could be. *shrug* :P
Zanzibax 08-03-07, 07:16 PM	My statement is not the inverse, converse, reverse or any other irrelevancy of the rule as written. It is the contrapositive. Look it up on wikipedia. Actually, more specifically my statement is the contrapositive of the statement "If you can make a melee attack into a square, then you threaten that square." If there is an exception to that statement, then that exception is a counterexample to "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." Could you try to give one example of a case in which a) you can make a melee attack into a square. and b) you do not threaten that square. and c) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. Every single time you will find that at least one of those statements does not hold true. Without fail. It is not possible for all three to be true simultaneously. It is not possible for B & C to be true together at any time. Thus, you cannot say anything about A. It's irrelevant to your point. It could state "Generally, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." In that case it would be obvious that any rule restricting you ability to threaten a square which does not explicitly limit your ability to make a melee attack has an effect only on threatening. "A creature typically threatens all squares within its natural reach, even when it is not its turn to take an action. " No, apparently that isn't good enough for you. Snake's Swiftness grants the target an extra melee attack. You don't threaten any targets for three different reasons in the above example. The grapple rules explain what you can do in a grapple: It then proceeds with a list. That neither says you can attack an opponent 15' away, nor does it say you cannot. <<snip>> That does not say you cannot make attacks into other squares, it only says you do not threaten those squares. Quite obviously, you didn't understand the clear language as written. According to the text, that list comprises the sum total of things you can do.
Timlagor 08-03-07, 08:55 PM	I have a gut feeling that a prize is offered for getting debate threads to 15 pages but for the life of me I've never heard what that prize could be. *shrug* :P I thought Istaran was hoping something would explode...
Cynric 08-04-07, 08:20 AM	Did we really, really have to start this up again? As the one who started this post. I humbly apologise, as it seems to have taken a life of it's own and has completely forgotten the original question.:weep:
thorinXXX 08-04-07, 01:00 PM	Istaran If you are going to ressurect a dead thread, please at least read the whole thing first so that you can bring up new arguements rather than rehash ones that convinced no one two mnths ago.
Istaran 08-04-07, 06:10 PM	Istaran If you are going to ressurect a dead thread, please at least read the whole thing first so that you can bring up new arguements rather than rehash ones that convinced no one two mnths ago. I did read the whole thread, and much like Copper I was drawn in by the blatantly bad abuses of elementary logic. I'm not sure how posting 6 hours after the previous post constitutes me 'resurrect[ing] a dead thread', but I apoligize. As for rehashing an old argument, I was just trying to try another approach to show Zanzibax and Samwise that any situation in which you can make a melee attack and do not threaten is an exception to the normal rules. They appeared to be adamantly determined to insist that such a situation is not in fact an exception to the normal rule, rather than simply claiming that a certain situation is an exception to that normal rule. Several of us have made various cases to show that such a situation is an exception to the normal rule. Forgive me for thinking that I could come up with a way to convince the unconvinceable. Or that anyone would even read my posts and respond to them rather than rehashing incorrect counters to other people's arguments. I'm still curious about the interaction between grapple rules and Snake's Swiftness, now that the thread has gotten me thinking in that direction, but it doesn't appear anyone has an answer of any kind to that.
Redfist 08-04-07, 06:27 PM	Dear Santa: I've been a very good boy this year. I only want 2 things for christmas. 1. My 2 front teeth. 2. And for this thread to finally go away for good. Thanks, Jimmy!
Banor 08-04-07, 09:09 PM	Dear Santa: I've been a very good boy this year. I only want 2 things for christmas. 1. My 2 front teeth. 2. And for this thread to finally go away for good. Thanks, Jimmy! Dear Jimmy, You can be sure for your front teeth, you've been waiting long enough (next time don't try that sneak Santa trick I get a little nervous sometimes). As far as this topic, I can't really do anything as the Elves Union is threatening to go on Strike if I close this thread. They like drama a lot and they usually read it after Lost. That be cruel to do so. Love, Santa
JamesMaissen 08-06-07, 02:47 AM	I did read the whole thread, and much like Copper I was drawn in by the blatantly bad abuses of elementary logic. The problem is trying to apply absolute logic when dealing with a system comprised of exceptions. When one writes an exception into the rules, one should explain the extent of the exception. For example: Wild armor allows one to retain it's armor bonus when the armor is melded. Does that make the armor fail to meld? No. It just gives what it says. The feat denies the user from threatening squares. It doesn't disallow extra attacks. Some weapons don't threaten squares (i.e. the whip). In this case the feat changes how the weapon works. It penalizes the user how it says but no more (and no less). The rules are not a system of logic. For example, one rule is stated 'A character can only make one AOO in a round'. Now is that true? *Some* of the time, it is. The rules are written as a game for people to learn. They write in generalities and give exceptions. Trying to apply absolutes to them like this is not understanding how they are written. For example: One can still attack with a whip even though it says one doesn't threaten squares with it. The general rule is that you threaten squares where you can make a melee attack, but it is obviously not always the case. Where exceptions to this occur they have to be seen in that light. Apply your same arguments to being able to make a melee attack with a whip, being able to make multiple AOOs in a round (via combat reflexes), or with any other exception to the normal rules and you will be able to deny many of these exceptions because they don't fit into the normal way of things (by design). -James
Istaran 08-06-07, 02:56 PM	My whole argument from the beginning has been that the feat must be an exception to the rule on threatening. And if it is not an exception (the text could easily be interpretted either way) then it prevents attacking by preventing threatening. Again, look at the rules on grappling. They say you do not threaten. It is reasonably clear, I thought, that they intended to prevent you from attacking aside from the explicit in-grapple attack rules. However the "you do not threaten" rule is the only rules text I can find to even indirectly support that theory. The shield bashing feat also says you do not threaten. From what I've seen of it it looks like the intention is that you are too out of it from the disorienting nature of the attack you just made to be able to make any sort of attack. Interpretted as such, you take it not to be an exception, and apply the standard rules, so no attack off of a Snake's Swiftness (though Cleave still has a chance due to timing conciderations). If you interpret it as you are only out of it enough to not be able to spot openings and make AoOs then you interpret it as an exception: a special case in which you do not threaten despite the fact that you can make melee attacks. The text is not clear enough to be unambiguous in this matter. What is unambiguous is that if the situation created by the feat is not an exception then you cannot attack. Because if you could attack, and the standard rule applied, then you would threaten. And you do not.
bitznarf 08-06-07, 08:53 PM	Do you realize that the glossary text at the back of the PHB does not work in both directions? And that the glossary definition doesn't always apply? For example under 'staggered' it says this: "having nonlethal damage exactly equal to current hit points. A staggered character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions)." There are ways to become staggered (Staggering Strike for example) that do not have anything to do with "having nonlethal damage exactly equal to current hit points." Or how about 'stunned'. "A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." It is possible for all of those things to apply to one PC *without the PC actually being stunned*. All it takes is one example to prove that the glossary text is not a list of definitions. I've given you two.
Mommy was an Orc 08-06-07, 10:20 PM	All it takes is one example to prove that the glossary text is not a list of definitions. I've given you two. There is a difference between examples and counterexamples. You can't actually use examples in the way you're doing. Staggering Strike only treats you as if you were staggered - it doesn't actually make you staggered. The penalties that come with being stunned get removed when you are no longer stunned. You need to be able to duplicate that too. Counterexamples are much more useful. As a counterexample, I can quote PHB(pg. 5) to show that the glossary text is a list of definitions: "...glossary that begins on page 304. Here's where you'll find definitions of the terms we use in the rules..."
Timlagor 08-07-07, 03:19 PM	The problem is trying to apply absolute logic when dealing with a system comprised of exceptions. When one writes an exception into the rules, one should explain the extent of the exception. -James Actually the problem is mostly just blatant fallacies. There are several claims (repeated and insisted upon) that are simply not true in any way. It has nothing to do with whether there are exceptions or not nor does it require that "absolute logic" (whatever that is) apply. Logic applies just fine to D&D rules and there is no other system of reasoning that can be substituted for it. People incapable of understanding logical argument in any form certainly aren't qualified to say when it doesn't apply. [now I'm going to try to resist posting here again ...maybe I should expand my Ignore list.]
Timlagor 08-07-07, 03:22 PM	Bitz: how do you emulate stunning without actual stunning? EDIT: I suppose Death would work technically..
bitznarf 08-07-07, 05:06 PM	I'll respond to both MwaO and Timlagor when I have all my books in front of me.