All About Trip Attacks (Part Two) [Archive] - Wizards Community

All About Trip Attacks (Part Two) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Some_call_me_Tim
03-30-06, 06:19 PM In the latest Rules of the Game article All About Trip Attacks (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a), Skip slips in a rule change. ...if you lose the required opposed check and become subject to a trip attempt from your foe, you can avoid the attempt by dropping the weapon (a free action). If you drop the weapon, you must decide to do so before you and your foe make opposed checks to resolve the reactive trip attempt. [empahsis added]This completely contradicts the rules in the equipment section which state: "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the [insert weapon here] to avoid being tripped." I don't know how much clearer that can be, it is even repeated in the section on combat that Skip cites. :rant:

Is Skip just being Skip, or is there an errata/FAQ I've never heard of. Anyone use this as a house rule?
Traevanon
03-30-06, 11:21 PM Its not completely contradictory. The original rule doesnt specify exactly when the decision is made to drop your weapon. Both before and after the reactive attempt can fit the rule as I read it.

Its a clarification which slightly more restrictive to trippers that reading it the other way, but its not a major deal in the big picture.
strumbleduck
03-31-06, 12:10 AM I think it's pretty clear that Skip erred on that one. He's been wrong before.
Some_call_me_Tim
03-31-06, 12:28 AM Its not completely contradictory. The original rule doesnt specify exactly when the decision is made to drop your weapon. Both before and after the reactive attempt can fit the rule as I read it.

Its a clarification which slightly more restrictive to trippers that reading it the other way, but its not a major deal in the big picture.How do you get that from "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped." Do you take "If you are tripped" to mean "If someone attempts to trip you during your own attempt" instead of "If you are successfully tripped during your own trip attempt."

I must admit I hadn't thought of that (hence my original post), but I think that is really twisting the wording.

Actually, I do think it is a pretty major deal vs. a trip monkey. It means the difference between them being forced to drop the weapon much more frequently or even ending up prone themselves.

If that is what the authors meant when the wrote the tripping rule they really need to reword it. Everyone I play with reads it that they can decide after the trip attempt is resolved.
StormCrow42
03-31-06, 12:29 AM I noticed that too. The rules say "if you are tripped", not "if your opponent attempts to trip you". I have long ago ceased to be suprised when such mistakes turn up in web articles (or the FAQ for that matter).
KnaveofClubs
03-31-06, 12:48 AM Yeah it..wait..huh..oh... This makes no sense, how can you be tripped in response, choose to drop your weapon, but not be actually tripped yet. I think all he was trying to clear up was trying to make it to where you couldn't make a decision after you messed up. What would work is something like this, "If your trip attempt fails, your opponent can make an opposed attempt to trip you as a reaction. If you drop your weapon (as a free action) before the opponent reacts, you avoid any attempt." I think that would work better or you could stick with the book rules.
fatal error
03-31-06, 01:00 AM It makes perfect since the way it is in the book. You try and trip your foe, you fail, they grab your whip (if you're using a whip) and pull it trying to bring you down. This happens in quite a few movies (which I can conveniantly not name at the moment). You struggle, lose out, and instead of being taken down by your own weapon you drop it.

I actually have a hard time wrapping my mind around it working any other way. Of course, locked gauntlets would suck for a tripper.
KnaveofClubs
03-31-06, 01:21 AM It makes perfect since the way it is in the book. You try and trip your foe, you fail, they grab your whip (if you're using a whip) and pull it trying to bring you down. This happens in quite a few movies (which I can conveniantly not name at the moment). You struggle, lose out, and instead of being taken down by your own weapon you drop it.

I actually have a hard time wrapping my mind around it working any other way. Of course, locked gauntlets would suck for a tripper.
Yes but the "clarification" is what doesn't make sense. It contradicts itself in itself, the clarification in the first post that is. Look at it good, you will do a double-take.
fatal error
03-31-06, 01:22 AM Yes but the "clarification" is what doesn't make sense. It contradict itself in itself, the clarification in the first post that is. Look at it good, you will do a double-take.

Yea, I know, I was posting some logic as to why it didn't make sense.
KnaveofClubs
03-31-06, 01:24 AM Yea, I know, I was posting some logic as to why it didn't make sense.
AAhh dammit none of this thread makes sense! Its like the jumbo, freshwater shrimp at the grocery store. How can it possibly exist! The Madness! Aww crap my brains poured out of my ear and stained my floor.
strumbleduck
03-31-06, 02:49 AM The horror! The horror!
zodiki
03-31-06, 08:42 AM In English unfortunately, you cannot without context distiguish between "If you are tripped, " meaning "If someone tries to trip you" and "If you have already been tripped".

In this case, the rule is making it clear that you cannot drop your weapon to avoid being tripped after the reactive trip attack has been resolved (and the original tripper has lost presumably), only before the reactive trip is attempted.

1. A tries to trip B and loses the check.
2. A must decide now if he is going to drop his weapon.

First scenario
1. A drops his weapon.
2. B cannot make a reactive trip attack.

Second Scenario
1. A doesnt drop his weapon.
2. B makes a reactive trip attack.
3. B is successful in his reactive trip attack
4. A thinks according to the rules he can now drop his weapon to avoid the trip - he cant according to Skip's ruling. A has already been tripped and his chance to avoid the trip by dropping his weapon has already passed.
StormCrow42
03-31-06, 03:43 PM We know what Skip is saying. We just disagree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this is another instance of various sages and ex-sages making up conflicting rulings out of whole cloth, perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) because they haven't actually sat down and closely read the rules that actually exist.

Again, the rule could have easily said "if your opponent attempts to trip you in response...", but it didn't. It says "if you ARE tripped".
Some_call_me_Tim
03-31-06, 04:10 PM We know what Skip is saying. We just disagree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this is another instance of various sages and ex-sages making up conflicting rulings out of whole cloth, perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) because they haven't actually sat down and closely read the rules that actually exist.I get just as frustrated as the next guy with Skipism's but, theoretically he and Andy were there when it was written and revised, so they should have insight into what was actually meant, regardless of what the rule actually says. So, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I just wish they would at least say something like "it should have said" or "change it to say" or "in my campaign" or "this is a house rule" instead of just pretending it reads the way they want it to.

What I wonder is if this is one of the those cases where Skip wanted it to work one way and the rest of the team didn't and he is just ignoring what is actually written; or is what actually written not what was intended.
Bruunwald
03-31-06, 04:17 PM The original rule is unclear. Skip clarified it and it makes more sense his way.

Use your brains: If you waited to drop the weapon until AFTER YOU WERE TRIPPED as the original rule implies, then it would be too late because you'd already be tripped.

Look at it from a different direction: if you waited to see if you really were tripped and then said, "no, wait! I drop the weapon!" then you're going back in time a step. Yes, munchkinning.

No? Okay, then let's assume you want to deal more damage and dropped your shield your last turn so you could use both hands on your weapon. Now your DM hits you by only 1 point. You might as well tell your DM that you want to go back and not intentionally drop your shield on your last turn because he only hit you by 1 point and you don't like that. Same thing. It's a little longer duration in that example than the trip example, I grant you, but it's the same thing: both require going back in time a step to change reality.

On the other hand, Skip's interpretation is the only realistic one.

1. You attempt to trip your opponent with your weapon.
2. You fail and you see him reacting to trip you.
3. You drop the weapon before he can resolve the attempt.

Realistic, fair, and the only viable solution. Anything else is munchkinning a vague error on the part of the original publication. Yes it is.

Yes.
It is.
olshanski_home
03-31-06, 04:34 PM Actually, I kind of like the new interpretation.
Tripping is an overpowered tactic and low and mid levels.
Tripping is underpowered tactic at high levels (when everyone is probably flying magically).
Some_call_me_Tim
03-31-06, 05:19 PM On the other hand, Skip's interpretation is the only realistic one.

1. You attempt to trip your opponent with your weapon.
2. You fail and you see him reacting to trip you.
3. You drop the weapon before he can resolve the attempt.
I can easily justify the other interpretation too.

You attempt to trip your oppent with your weapon.
You fail and see him reacting to trip you.
You loosen your grip on the weapon before he can resolve the attempt.
He yanks on the weapon like a sissy-man.
You don't drop your weapon.
That's the problem with trying to argue a lot of rules this way, you can create just about any situation and justification you want. I think the more interesting arguments are based on what does the rule say, what should it have said and how each interpretation affects game balance. This definately shifts the balance of power away from a tripper. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Traevanon
03-31-06, 10:29 PM I'm sure that to someone who has stacked 5 or 10 different trip feats this *nerf* is crucial to their continued dominance within their group, but overall its really a minor change.

I can see the reading "If you are tripped..." to mean after the reactive trip is resolved.

I can also see that reading it that way may be taking it a bit too literally.

I can also see both ways of it making sense in the game.

I'd go with the "Most recent printing" rule of precedence and use Skip's in my game, but you are free to consider it unofficial.
Cantankerous
04-01-06, 03:27 AM In English unfortunately, you cannot without context distiguish between "If you are tripped, " meaning "If someone tries to trip you" and "If you have already been tripped".

No true at all.

Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it.

Isshia
Pandaemoni
04-01-06, 10:58 AM No true at all.

Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it.

Isshia

Technically, "are tripped" could be the "present perfect" tense, meaning that the "tripping" could have happened in the past or present, and zodiki is definitely correct. More likely in this case, it is an example of the "second conditional mood."

"If you are tripped...." is therefore akin to "If you are lost, call your mother."

[Edit: In that regard, the use of the past participle "tripped" is not an indication of tense. "I was wounded" and "I am wounded" both use past participles to convey different tenses. In the conditional, of course, one must refer to past tense events using the subjunctive tense ... so "I was wounded" would become "If I were wounded." That's true even though the use of the subjunctive is also not strictly prohibited in the present tense where "I am wounded" can become either "If I am wounded" or "If I were wounded" (or "If I were to be wounded") depending upon the likelihood of receiving the wound (the less likely the wound, the more likely the use of the subjunctive is appropriate). ]

In fact, it's not technically a statement of past or present tense, but a hypothetical. The statement could easily be adjusted to refer to the present or future clearly. For example, the sentence, "If you are tripped next round, then we will all die" plainly references a future tripping. On the other hand, it cannot be a reference to the past tense, strictly speaking. Consider the phrase "If you are tripped yesterday...." That makes little sense. Grammatically, the best you could do is third conditional "If you had been tripped yesterday...."

In any event, parsing the English of the WOTC rules is foolish. The authors are neither contract lawyers (who tend to use language very precisely by trade) nor grammarians and do not use language in the most technically specific ways. The real question is "What did they mean when they wrote the tripping rules?" not really "what did they write?"

In this case the technical meaning is a close question. If I thought it would shed light on the meaning of the phrase, I suppose I could break out the Strunck & White's or the Chicago Manual of Style and parse the language more precisely. That said, my interpretation would be subjective opinion because the answer is plainly too close to call...and even if I thought I had found "the" answer, what are the odds the writers had Elements of Style or some similar book of grammar open when they wrote it?
The Abominable Darkling
04-01-06, 11:50 AM No true at all.

Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it.

Isshia
Actually, Isshia, in this case, "tripped" is the present tense passive voice. Saying "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can..." is equivalent to saying "If your opponent trips you during your own trip attempt, you can..."
Cantankerous
04-01-06, 02:07 PM Because it's an innaccurate and clumsy formulation. "If you are tripped", is future perfect, which can't help but be clumsy and usually is avoided in technical texts, which rules, even in a game, are. "If you were tripped and are falling", or "if you were tripped during your attempt and are thus tripping" (the second of which would be avoided as being inelegant and cumbersome) would be more technicly correct.

So, ... never mind, it is indeed a correct formulation...just one that's incredibly clumsy.

Isshia
The Abominable Darkling
04-01-06, 02:27 PM "If you are tripped..." is in the present tense using the passive voice.

The future perfect tense would look like this: "If you will have tripped..."
Pandaemoni
04-01-06, 08:37 PM "If you are tripped..." is in the present tense using the passive voice.

The future perfect tense would look like this: "If you will have tripped..."

I wouldn't say "If you are tripped" is present tense, strictly speaking, because the statement is hypothetical. Again, "If you are tripped next week...," is a perfectly acceptable phrasing about the future (though an incomplete sentence on its own) whereas "You are tripped next week," is incorrect. ("You will be tripped next week," is the correct form.)

The difference is conditional mood. Because the statement is hypthetical, tense is looser and less important.
The Abominable Darkling
04-01-06, 11:54 PM There is no such thing as the "conditional" mood in English. English has three moods: the indicative, the imperative, and the subjunctive. But it's irrelevant anyway since mood has no bearing on tense. Furthermore, a conditional statement neither lessens nor loosens the importance of tense.

Tossing around words like participle, subjunctive, and mood may intimidate some posters on this board; however, to someone like me, who actually knows what those words mean, it's completely obvious that you haven't the foggiest notion of what you're talking about.
Pandaemoni
04-02-06, 04:58 AM There is no such thing as the "conditional" mood in English.

Ahem...English does not have a conditional verb-form distinct from other conjugations the way may other languages do, but it does have it's own peculiar rules for conditional constructions which are called the English "conditional mood" by many sources. Differences from standard moods include the heavier use of the subjunctive tense in certain cases. English has four distinct forms of conditional statements (dubbed "zero conditional" through "third conditional").

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conditional_mood
http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blconditionals.htm

Mood has no bearing on tense per se, but the English conditional in certain constructions makes it easy to confuse certain statements about presently hypothesized events and events that are hypothesized to occur in the future (largely because the distinction is usually irrelevant in a hypothetical context and the speaker means to cover both present and future action).

The phrase, "You are tripped," is present tense and references a tripping in the here and now (as is "I am slain"). The phrase, "If you are tripped," (or "If I am slain") might refer to a present tripping (slaying) or to a future tripping (slaying), because the tripping is hypothetical.

[Edit: The ultimately point being that parsing the language of the sentence, "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the [insert weapon here] to avoid being tripped," does not shed any light on when, during the combat round, the designers intended that you make the [i]decision regarding dropping your weapon. Nor will any parsing of "[then] you can drop" yield any useful information, as although the dropping will be a present or future action because it is tied to the tripping, the decision to drop is a separate thing. The intent of the author is not hidden in the words...and even if some definite answer regarding the decision to drop could be discerned from the words, it very well might not have been what the authors intended. The writers and editors likely did not dwell over the precise meaning of the passage.]
The Abominable Darkling
04-02-06, 02:10 PM Ahem...English does not have a conditional verb-form distinct from other conjugations the way may other languages do, but it does have it's own peculiar rules for conditional constructions which are called the English "conditional mood" by many sources.
Alright. Having followed your links and done a little searching on the web, I acknowledge that many sources do indeed call the conditional a "mood." This strikes me as absurd, however, since a mood must have a distinct inflectional form.

If your ultimate point is that a rigorous grammatical analysis of the sentence will fail to divine the design intent behind it, then I agree. Nevertheless, I think the design intent is clear. If they really intended the rule to work the way Skip suggests, then they could have used a much simpler construction to convey that meaning.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Some_call_me_Tim 03-30-06, 06:19 PM	In the latest Rules of the Game article All About Trip Attacks (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a), Skip slips in a rule change. ...if you lose the required opposed check and become subject to a trip attempt from your foe, you can avoid the attempt by dropping the weapon (a free action). If you drop the weapon, you must decide to do so before you and your foe make opposed checks to resolve the reactive trip attempt. [empahsis added]This completely contradicts the rules in the equipment section which state: "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the [insert weapon here] to avoid being tripped." I don't know how much clearer that can be, it is even repeated in the section on combat that Skip cites. :rant: Is Skip just being Skip, or is there an errata/FAQ I've never heard of. Anyone use this as a house rule?
Traevanon 03-30-06, 11:21 PM	Its not completely contradictory. The original rule doesnt specify exactly when the decision is made to drop your weapon. Both before and after the reactive attempt can fit the rule as I read it. Its a clarification which slightly more restrictive to trippers that reading it the other way, but its not a major deal in the big picture.
strumbleduck 03-31-06, 12:10 AM	I think it's pretty clear that Skip erred on that one. He's been wrong before.
Some_call_me_Tim 03-31-06, 12:28 AM	Its not completely contradictory. The original rule doesnt specify exactly when the decision is made to drop your weapon. Both before and after the reactive attempt can fit the rule as I read it. Its a clarification which slightly more restrictive to trippers that reading it the other way, but its not a major deal in the big picture.How do you get that from "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped." Do you take "If you are tripped" to mean "If someone attempts to trip you during your own attempt" instead of "If you are successfully tripped during your own trip attempt." I must admit I hadn't thought of that (hence my original post), but I think that is really twisting the wording. Actually, I do think it is a pretty major deal vs. a trip monkey. It means the difference between them being forced to drop the weapon much more frequently or even ending up prone themselves. If that is what the authors meant when the wrote the tripping rule they really need to reword it. Everyone I play with reads it that they can decide after the trip attempt is resolved.
StormCrow42 03-31-06, 12:29 AM	I noticed that too. The rules say "if you are tripped", not "if your opponent attempts to trip you". I have long ago ceased to be suprised when such mistakes turn up in web articles (or the FAQ for that matter).
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 12:48 AM	Yeah it..wait..huh..oh... This makes no sense, how can you be tripped in response, choose to drop your weapon, but not be actually tripped yet. I think all he was trying to clear up was trying to make it to where you couldn't make a decision after you messed up. What would work is something like this, "If your trip attempt fails, your opponent can make an opposed attempt to trip you as a reaction. If you drop your weapon (as a free action) before the opponent reacts, you avoid any attempt." I think that would work better or you could stick with the book rules.
fatal error 03-31-06, 01:00 AM	It makes perfect since the way it is in the book. You try and trip your foe, you fail, they grab your whip (if you're using a whip) and pull it trying to bring you down. This happens in quite a few movies (which I can conveniantly not name at the moment). You struggle, lose out, and instead of being taken down by your own weapon you drop it. I actually have a hard time wrapping my mind around it working any other way. Of course, locked gauntlets would suck for a tripper.
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 01:21 AM	It makes perfect since the way it is in the book. You try and trip your foe, you fail, they grab your whip (if you're using a whip) and pull it trying to bring you down. This happens in quite a few movies (which I can conveniantly not name at the moment). You struggle, lose out, and instead of being taken down by your own weapon you drop it. I actually have a hard time wrapping my mind around it working any other way. Of course, locked gauntlets would suck for a tripper. Yes but the "clarification" is what doesn't make sense. It contradicts itself in itself, the clarification in the first post that is. Look at it good, you will do a double-take.
fatal error 03-31-06, 01:22 AM	Yes but the "clarification" is what doesn't make sense. It contradict itself in itself, the clarification in the first post that is. Look at it good, you will do a double-take. Yea, I know, I was posting some logic as to why it didn't make sense.
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 01:24 AM	Yea, I know, I was posting some logic as to why it didn't make sense. AAhh dammit none of this thread makes sense! Its like the jumbo, freshwater shrimp at the grocery store. How can it possibly exist! The Madness! Aww crap my brains poured out of my ear and stained my floor.
strumbleduck 03-31-06, 02:49 AM	The horror! The horror!
zodiki 03-31-06, 08:42 AM	In English unfortunately, you cannot without context distiguish between "If you are tripped, " meaning "If someone tries to trip you" and "If you have already been tripped". In this case, the rule is making it clear that you cannot drop your weapon to avoid being tripped after the reactive trip attack has been resolved (and the original tripper has lost presumably), only before the reactive trip is attempted. 1. A tries to trip B and loses the check. 2. A must decide now if he is going to drop his weapon. First scenario 1. A drops his weapon. 2. B cannot make a reactive trip attack. Second Scenario 1. A doesnt drop his weapon. 2. B makes a reactive trip attack. 3. B is successful in his reactive trip attack 4. A thinks according to the rules he can now drop his weapon to avoid the trip - he cant according to Skip's ruling. A has already been tripped and his chance to avoid the trip by dropping his weapon has already passed.
StormCrow42 03-31-06, 03:43 PM	We know what Skip is saying. We just disagree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this is another instance of various sages and ex-sages making up conflicting rulings out of whole cloth, perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) because they haven't actually sat down and closely read the rules that actually exist. Again, the rule could have easily said "if your opponent attempts to trip you in response...", but it didn't. It says "if you ARE tripped".
Some_call_me_Tim 03-31-06, 04:10 PM	We know what Skip is saying. We just disagree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this is another instance of various sages and ex-sages making up conflicting rulings out of whole cloth, perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) because they haven't actually sat down and closely read the rules that actually exist.I get just as frustrated as the next guy with Skipism's but, theoretically he and Andy were there when it was written and revised, so they should have insight into what was actually meant, regardless of what the rule actually says. So, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I just wish they would at least say something like "it should have said" or "change it to say" or "in my campaign" or "this is a house rule" instead of just pretending it reads the way they want it to. What I wonder is if this is one of the those cases where Skip wanted it to work one way and the rest of the team didn't and he is just ignoring what is actually written; or is what actually written not what was intended.
Bruunwald 03-31-06, 04:17 PM	The original rule is unclear. Skip clarified it and it makes more sense his way. Use your brains: If you waited to drop the weapon until AFTER YOU WERE TRIPPED as the original rule implies, then it would be too late because you'd already be tripped. Look at it from a different direction: if you waited to see if you really were tripped and then said, "no, wait! I drop the weapon!" then you're going back in time a step. Yes, munchkinning. No? Okay, then let's assume you want to deal more damage and dropped your shield your last turn so you could use both hands on your weapon. Now your DM hits you by only 1 point. You might as well tell your DM that you want to go back and not intentionally drop your shield on your last turn because he only hit you by 1 point and you don't like that. Same thing. It's a little longer duration in that example than the trip example, I grant you, but it's the same thing: both require going back in time a step to change reality. On the other hand, Skip's interpretation is the only realistic one. 1. You attempt to trip your opponent with your weapon. 2. You fail and you see him reacting to trip you. 3. You drop the weapon before he can resolve the attempt. Realistic, fair, and the only viable solution. Anything else is munchkinning a vague error on the part of the original publication. Yes it is. Yes. It is.
olshanski_home 03-31-06, 04:34 PM	Actually, I kind of like the new interpretation. Tripping is an overpowered tactic and low and mid levels. Tripping is underpowered tactic at high levels (when everyone is probably flying magically).
Some_call_me_Tim 03-31-06, 05:19 PM	On the other hand, Skip's interpretation is the only realistic one. 1. You attempt to trip your opponent with your weapon. 2. You fail and you see him reacting to trip you. 3. You drop the weapon before he can resolve the attempt. I can easily justify the other interpretation too. You attempt to trip your oppent with your weapon. You fail and see him reacting to trip you. You loosen your grip on the weapon before he can resolve the attempt. He yanks on the weapon like a sissy-man. You don't drop your weapon. That's the problem with trying to argue a lot of rules this way, you can create just about any situation and justification you want. I think the more interesting arguments are based on what does the rule say, what should it have said and how each interpretation affects game balance. This definately shifts the balance of power away from a tripper. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Traevanon 03-31-06, 10:29 PM	I'm sure that to someone who has stacked 5 or 10 different trip feats this nerf is crucial to their continued dominance within their group, but overall its really a minor change. I can see the reading "If you are tripped..." to mean after the reactive trip is resolved. I can also see that reading it that way may be taking it a bit too literally. I can also see both ways of it making sense in the game. I'd go with the "Most recent printing" rule of precedence and use Skip's in my game, but you are free to consider it unofficial.
Cantankerous 04-01-06, 03:27 AM	In English unfortunately, you cannot without context distiguish between "If you are tripped, " meaning "If someone tries to trip you" and "If you have already been tripped". No true at all. Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it. Isshia
Pandaemoni 04-01-06, 10:58 AM	No true at all. Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it. Isshia Technically, "are tripped" could be the "present perfect" tense, meaning that the "tripping" could have happened in the past or present, and zodiki is definitely correct. More likely in this case, it is an example of the "second conditional mood." "If you are tripped...." is therefore akin to "If you are lost, call your mother." [Edit: In that regard, the use of the past participle "tripped" is not an indication of tense. "I was wounded" and "I am wounded" both use past participles to convey different tenses. In the conditional, of course, one must refer to past tense events using the subjunctive tense ... so "I was wounded" would become "If I were wounded." That's true even though the use of the subjunctive is also not strictly prohibited in the present tense where "I am wounded" can become either "If I am wounded" or "If I were wounded" (or "If I were to be wounded") depending upon the likelihood of receiving the wound (the less likely the wound, the more likely the use of the subjunctive is appropriate). ] In fact, it's not technically a statement of past or present tense, but a hypothetical. The statement could easily be adjusted to refer to the present or future clearly. For example, the sentence, "If you are tripped next round, then we will all die" plainly references a future tripping. On the other hand, it cannot be a reference to the past tense, strictly speaking. Consider the phrase "If you are tripped yesterday...." That makes little sense. Grammatically, the best you could do is third conditional "If you had been tripped yesterday...." In any event, parsing the English of the WOTC rules is foolish. The authors are neither contract lawyers (who tend to use language very precisely by trade) nor grammarians and do not use language in the most technically specific ways. The real question is "What did they mean when they wrote the tripping rules?" not really "what did they write?" In this case the technical meaning is a close question. If I thought it would shed light on the meaning of the phrase, I suppose I could break out the Strunck & White's or the Chicago Manual of Style and parse the language more precisely. That said, my interpretation would be subjective opinion because the answer is plainly too close to call...and even if I thought I had found "the" answer, what are the odds the writers had Elements of Style or some similar book of grammar open when they wrote it?
The Abominable Darkling 04-01-06, 11:50 AM	No true at all. Tripped is past tense. Tripping is present tense. If you have tripped, you've already done it. Isshia Actually, Isshia, in this case, "tripped" is the present tense passive voice. Saying "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can..." is equivalent to saying "If your opponent trips you during your own trip attempt, you can..."
Cantankerous 04-01-06, 02:07 PM	Because it's an innaccurate and clumsy formulation. "If you are tripped", is future perfect, which can't help but be clumsy and usually is avoided in technical texts, which rules, even in a game, are. "If you were tripped and are falling", or "if you were tripped during your attempt and are thus tripping" (the second of which would be avoided as being inelegant and cumbersome) would be more technicly correct. So, ... never mind, it is indeed a correct formulation...just one that's incredibly clumsy. Isshia
The Abominable Darkling 04-01-06, 02:27 PM	"If you are tripped..." is in the present tense using the passive voice. The future perfect tense would look like this: "If you will have tripped..."
Pandaemoni 04-01-06, 08:37 PM	"If you are tripped..." is in the present tense using the passive voice. The future perfect tense would look like this: "If you will have tripped..." I wouldn't say "If you are tripped" is present tense, strictly speaking, because the statement is hypothetical. Again, "If you are tripped next week...," is a perfectly acceptable phrasing about the future (though an incomplete sentence on its own) whereas "You are tripped next week," is incorrect. ("You will be tripped next week," is the correct form.) The difference is conditional mood. Because the statement is hypthetical, tense is looser and less important.
The Abominable Darkling 04-01-06, 11:54 PM	There is no such thing as the "conditional" mood in English. English has three moods: the indicative, the imperative, and the subjunctive. But it's irrelevant anyway since mood has no bearing on tense. Furthermore, a conditional statement neither lessens nor loosens the importance of tense. Tossing around words like participle, subjunctive, and mood may intimidate some posters on this board; however, to someone like me, who actually knows what those words mean, it's completely obvious that you haven't the foggiest notion of what you're talking about.
Pandaemoni 04-02-06, 04:58 AM	There is no such thing as the "conditional" mood in English. Ahem...English does not have a conditional verb-form distinct from other conjugations the way may other languages do, but it does have it's own peculiar rules for conditional constructions which are called the English "conditional mood" by many sources. Differences from standard moods include the heavier use of the subjunctive tense in certain cases. English has four distinct forms of conditional statements (dubbed "zero conditional" through "third conditional"). http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conditional_mood http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blconditionals.htm Mood has no bearing on tense per se, but the English conditional in certain constructions makes it easy to confuse certain statements about presently hypothesized events and events that are hypothesized to occur in the future (largely because the distinction is usually irrelevant in a hypothetical context and the speaker means to cover both present and future action). The phrase, "You are tripped," is present tense and references a tripping in the here and now (as is "I am slain"). The phrase, "If you are tripped," (or "If I am slain") might refer to a present tripping (slaying) or to a future tripping (slaying), because the tripping is hypothetical. [Edit: The ultimately point being that parsing the language of the sentence, "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the [insert weapon here] to avoid being tripped," does not shed any light on when, during the combat round, the designers intended that you make the [i]decision regarding dropping your weapon. Nor will any parsing of "[then] you can drop" yield any useful information, as although the dropping will be a present or future action because it is tied to the tripping, the decision to drop is a separate thing. The intent of the author is not hidden in the words...and even if some definite answer regarding the decision to drop could be discerned from the words, it very well might not have been what the authors intended. The writers and editors likely did not dwell over the precise meaning of the passage.]
The Abominable Darkling 04-02-06, 02:10 PM	Ahem...English does not have a conditional verb-form distinct from other conjugations the way may other languages do, but it does have it's own peculiar rules for conditional constructions which are called the English "conditional mood" by many sources. Alright. Having followed your links and done a little searching on the web, I acknowledge that many sources do indeed call the conditional a "mood." This strikes me as absurd, however, since a mood must have a distinct inflectional form. If your ultimate point is that a rigorous grammatical analysis of the sentence will fail to divine the design intent behind it, then I agree. Nevertheless, I think the design intent is clear. If they really intended the rule to work the way Skip suggests, then they could have used a much simpler construction to convey that meaning.