Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I was right about Shield Master
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7509813" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I guess I don't find the contrast between "scope" and "trigger" very helpful for understanding or parsing these rules. I mean, I feel that I could deploy that distinction to say that the "scope" of the Shield Master bonus action is a turn in which the Attack action is taken - and that action is taken (although not necessarily <em>fully</em> resolved, if I have an Extra attack) as soon as I attack on my turn.</p><p></p><p>And now there's no "nesting".</p><p></p><p>Conversely, I feel like I can insist that Cunning Action does have a trigger - to wit, <em>when you take a turn in combat</em>. (Ie I can't take the bonus action, effectively doubling my speed, in ordinary movement situations.) And now there is nesting.</p><p></p><p>Of course not. But I can put forward what I think are good or bad reasons for various interpretations. Until [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] provided me with the reasoning not far upthread, it seemed pretty clear to me that the attack action has to be taken to trigger the bonus action; but the inherent oddity of extra attack within the game together with the movement example makes it pretty clear to me that one takes the attack action by making an attack on one's turn, and then the <em>exra </em>attacks play out in a rather flexible way, which if it can include 15' of movement can probably include a bonus action as well.</p><p></p><p>So if this gets characterised as "nesting" well I just don't see what the problem is. <em>Nesting</em> doesn't seem to be a concept that occurs in the rules, or that one needs to explain or apply the rules. It seems to be an external concept introduced for the sake of tidiness.</p><p></p><p>Can a rogue who is Dashing as part of a cunning action drop something as s/he moves (but not at the beginning or end of the move)? I assume so - the rules don't contain a notion of "nesting" that makes me doubt it.</p><p></p><p>I should add - the oddness of Extra Attack is simply the latest example in a legacy of terminological and conceptual difficulties over what constitutes an "attack" that go back through 4e, and 3E's "full attack" that contains multiple attacks back to the rules in Gygax's AD&D which distinguish a monsters attack sequence of claw/claw/bite (ie three attacks) from a 12th level fighter's ability to take two attack sequences each of a single attack.</p><p></p><p>And these "nesting" worries seem very similar to debates back in 2008 about the proper interpretation of the OA-triggering rules for movement in 4e (where an example in the PHB of how taking the first square of movement triggers an OA even though the whole movement action hasn't yet been resolved). I'm not sure where exactly the concern comes from - for someone who's <em>not</em> a programmer (ie me) it looks like maybe it's a worry about the clarity of the logic in an algorthithmic resolution process, and the possible risks of some sort of uncontrolled looping/recursion? - but I personally just don't find it a useful analytical tool in these contexts. Whereas <em>the text</em> and <em>the gameplay context</em> I find very helpful. (I'm not a programmer but I am an academic philosopher and lawyer, and when interpreting statutes text and context are the two most important things, whereas this "nesting" idea isn't part of the toolkit.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7509813, member: 42582"] I guess I don't find the contrast between "scope" and "trigger" very helpful for understanding or parsing these rules. I mean, I feel that I could deploy that distinction to say that the "scope" of the Shield Master bonus action is a turn in which the Attack action is taken - and that action is taken (although not necessarily [I]fully[/I] resolved, if I have an Extra attack) as soon as I attack on my turn. And now there's no "nesting". Conversely, I feel like I can insist that Cunning Action does have a trigger - to wit, [I]when you take a turn in combat[/I]. (Ie I can't take the bonus action, effectively doubling my speed, in ordinary movement situations.) And now there is nesting. Of course not. But I can put forward what I think are good or bad reasons for various interpretations. Until [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] provided me with the reasoning not far upthread, it seemed pretty clear to me that the attack action has to be taken to trigger the bonus action; but the inherent oddity of extra attack within the game together with the movement example makes it pretty clear to me that one takes the attack action by making an attack on one's turn, and then the [I]exra [/I]attacks play out in a rather flexible way, which if it can include 15' of movement can probably include a bonus action as well. So if this gets characterised as "nesting" well I just don't see what the problem is. [I]Nesting[/I] doesn't seem to be a concept that occurs in the rules, or that one needs to explain or apply the rules. It seems to be an external concept introduced for the sake of tidiness. Can a rogue who is Dashing as part of a cunning action drop something as s/he moves (but not at the beginning or end of the move)? I assume so - the rules don't contain a notion of "nesting" that makes me doubt it. I should add - the oddness of Extra Attack is simply the latest example in a legacy of terminological and conceptual difficulties over what constitutes an "attack" that go back through 4e, and 3E's "full attack" that contains multiple attacks back to the rules in Gygax's AD&D which distinguish a monsters attack sequence of claw/claw/bite (ie three attacks) from a 12th level fighter's ability to take two attack sequences each of a single attack. And these "nesting" worries seem very similar to debates back in 2008 about the proper interpretation of the OA-triggering rules for movement in 4e (where an example in the PHB of how taking the first square of movement triggers an OA even though the whole movement action hasn't yet been resolved). I'm not sure where exactly the concern comes from - for someone who's [I]not[/I] a programmer (ie me) it looks like maybe it's a worry about the clarity of the logic in an algorthithmic resolution process, and the possible risks of some sort of uncontrolled looping/recursion? - but I personally just don't find it a useful analytical tool in these contexts. Whereas [I]the text[/I] and [I]the gameplay context[/I] I find very helpful. (I'm not a programmer but I am an academic philosopher and lawyer, and when interpreting statutes text and context are the two most important things, whereas this "nesting" idea isn't part of the toolkit.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I was right about Shield Master
Top