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 LIVE! 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
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
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="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7567668" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>There's 2 issues now. </p><p></p><p>1. The initial discussion about your interpretation being invalid. You see if an interpretation is valid I'm perfectly happy with multiple valid interpretation. Please don't mistaken believing a particular interpretation is invalid as a belief that there is only ever a single valid interpretation.</p><p></p><p>2. The point you made just a few posts back where you argued that due to rules being non-restrictive and you being able to abdicate your particular way meant you were playing by the rules. In short that issue is as I stated "The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Purpose" is such an odd word. The purpose of rules is to give us structures by which we can play the game. Players definitely can describe whatever they want their character to do and the DM definitely does resolve the characters actions, using the rules as appropriate. That said while the purpose of rules isn't to limit the scope of a players declaration, rules can definitely limit the mechanical resolution of such actions. As my previous example. A level 4 Fighter player may declare he attacks the ogre 4 times with his greatsword. The rules restrict the mechanical resolution of that declaration to a single attack and damage roll on this particular turn (barring the extra attack feature). </p><p>Now you as a DM are welcome to ignore that mechanical restriction placed upon the PC by the rules. It's your right to abdicate however you want. It's just that some abjucations follow the rules as they are written and some do not. There's no shame in admitting that, but most importantly in a rules discussion it does need to be admitted when you are doing one and when you are doing the other. </p><p></p><p>So I don't believe I'm misconstruing your statements. I flat out disagree with your portrayal of non-restrictive rules. I flat out disagree with the logical consequences that these beliefs incur. You see, the consequence of agreeing that rules never restrict actions is to admit that you can abdicate however you want and still be playing by the rules. I vehemently reject any premise that is going to lead down that kind of path. </p><p></p><p>I also think your purpose of using this abjucation and non-restrictive rules stance was to argue that your position is valid. As noted above, I reject your premises for this argument. So to me. the only way for your position to be valid is if it's a valid interpretation of the rules text. How about we get back to talking about that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you believe the condition for the bonus action shove hasn't been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn. That's a good start. At least we agree there.</p><p></p><p>So you also believe you can't check whether you took the attack action on your turn until 1 of 3 things happen</p><p>1) you take the attack action</p><p>2) you take another action</p><p>3) your turn ends</p><p></p><p>I agree here as well. You even go on to say that ONCE the condition has been met that qualifies you to use the bonus action shove any time during the same turn. I agree there as well. What I don't get is how you are saying "ONCE the condition has been met" and then insist on being able to "time travel" back to a point before you actually met the condition and then claim that because you actually met the condition in the pre time travel timeline that you now have also met the condition in the post time traveled timeline even though you've still not met the condition in this post time travel timeline yet. How does your interpretation not essentially boil down to something like this?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7567668, member: 6795602"] There's 2 issues now. 1. The initial discussion about your interpretation being invalid. You see if an interpretation is valid I'm perfectly happy with multiple valid interpretation. Please don't mistaken believing a particular interpretation is invalid as a belief that there is only ever a single valid interpretation. 2. The point you made just a few posts back where you argued that due to rules being non-restrictive and you being able to abdicate your particular way meant you were playing by the rules. In short that issue is as I stated "The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules." "Purpose" is such an odd word. The purpose of rules is to give us structures by which we can play the game. Players definitely can describe whatever they want their character to do and the DM definitely does resolve the characters actions, using the rules as appropriate. That said while the purpose of rules isn't to limit the scope of a players declaration, rules can definitely limit the mechanical resolution of such actions. As my previous example. A level 4 Fighter player may declare he attacks the ogre 4 times with his greatsword. The rules restrict the mechanical resolution of that declaration to a single attack and damage roll on this particular turn (barring the extra attack feature). Now you as a DM are welcome to ignore that mechanical restriction placed upon the PC by the rules. It's your right to abdicate however you want. It's just that some abjucations follow the rules as they are written and some do not. There's no shame in admitting that, but most importantly in a rules discussion it does need to be admitted when you are doing one and when you are doing the other. So I don't believe I'm misconstruing your statements. I flat out disagree with your portrayal of non-restrictive rules. I flat out disagree with the logical consequences that these beliefs incur. You see, the consequence of agreeing that rules never restrict actions is to admit that you can abdicate however you want and still be playing by the rules. I vehemently reject any premise that is going to lead down that kind of path. I also think your purpose of using this abjucation and non-restrictive rules stance was to argue that your position is valid. As noted above, I reject your premises for this argument. So to me. the only way for your position to be valid is if it's a valid interpretation of the rules text. How about we get back to talking about that? So you believe the condition for the bonus action shove hasn't been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn. That's a good start. At least we agree there. So you also believe you can't check whether you took the attack action on your turn until 1 of 3 things happen 1) you take the attack action 2) you take another action 3) your turn ends I agree here as well. You even go on to say that ONCE the condition has been met that qualifies you to use the bonus action shove any time during the same turn. I agree there as well. What I don't get is how you are saying "ONCE the condition has been met" and then insist on being able to "time travel" back to a point before you actually met the condition and then claim that because you actually met the condition in the pre time travel timeline that you now have also met the condition in the post time traveled timeline even though you've still not met the condition in this post time travel timeline yet. How does your interpretation not essentially boil down to something like this? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Top